State ex rel. Mahoney v. McKinmore
Oregon Supreme Court
Appeal from Douglas County. In this cause the respondent moves to dismiss the appeal: 1. Eor the reason that the undertaking is limited in amount to the sum of two hundred dollars. 2. Because no affidavits are filed, undertaking as to the qualifications of the sureties thereto.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Douglas County. In this cause the respondent moves to dismiss the appeal: 1. Eor the reason that the undertaking is limited in amount to the sum of two hundred dollars. 2. Because no affidavits are filed, undertaking as to the qualifications of the sureties thereto. After this motion was called for argument and the counsel for respondent had opened the case, and while he was making his argument upon the motion, the counsel for appellants filed a cross-motion asking leave to file a new and sufficient undertaking.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Boise, J.:
In the case of Cross v. Chichester, 4 Or. 114, it was held by this court that it is too late to apply to the court to perfect the appeal by filing a new undertaking “ after the motion to dismiss is brought on for hearing,” and such has been the rule of practice since that decision; and wre think *208the rule laid down in that ease is decisive of this point in this case, and that the appellant was too late in filing his motion to perfect the appeal by filing a new undertaking. In the case of Holcomb v. Teal, 4 Or. 352, it was held that the affidavits of the sureties in an…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Cross v. ChichesterOregon Supreme Court · 1871
- Holcomb v. TealOregon Supreme Court · 1873
3Cited by10 opinions
- Fleischner v. Bank of McMinnvilleOregon Supreme Court · 1898
- Ferrari v. Beaver Hill Coal Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1909
- Rugh v. SoleimOregon Supreme Court · 1919
- Northern Counties Investment Trust v. HenderWashington Supreme Court · 1895
- Sanborn v. FitzpatrickOregon Supreme Court · 1907
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.