Legal Opinion

State v. Horner

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided January 8, 1900PublishedCited by 18 opinions

From Lane : J. W. Hamilton, Judge. E. D. Horner was convicted of uttering and publishing a forged instrument, and appeals. The state asks a dismissal.

1Per curiam

The notice of appeal in this case is directed to and was served upon the district attorney, but not upon the clerk of the court where the judgment roll is filed. For this reason the attorney-general moves to dismiss the appeal, and the motion must be allowed. The criminal statute provides (Section 1438, Hill’s Ann. Laws), that “An appeal must be taken by the service of notice, in writing, on the clerk of the court where the judgment roll is filed, stating substantially that the appellant appeals from the judgmentand, Hill’s Ann. Laws, § 1434, “If the appeal be taken by the defendant, a…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Territory of Montana v. HannaMontana Supreme Court · 1884
  2. State v. GibbsMontana Supreme Court · 1890

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Getchell & Martin Lumber & Manufacturing Co. v. Peterson & SampsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1904
  2. Goodro v. TarkeySupreme Court of Vermont · 1941
  3. Reimers v. BrennanOregon Supreme Court · 1917
  4. Schade v. MullerOregon Supreme Court · 1915
  5. State v. BergerOregon Supreme Court · 1908

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API