Legal Opinion

Hink v. Bowlsby

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided September 10, 1953PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPerry, J.

The plaintiffs filed and argued a motion in this court to dismiss this appeal for the reason that the defendants failed to file a satisfactory undertaking on appeal within the statutory period of 60 days from the rendition of the trial court’s decree.

The notice of appeal, service thereof, and an undertaking on appeal were filed within the prescribed time. The original undertaking as filed was challenged, its insufficiency was admitted, and the defendants tendered another surety. The plaintiffs objected to the qualifications of the surety offered, which objection was sustained by the trial…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Bogard v. BarhanOregon Supreme Court · 1908
  2. Anderson v. Miami Lumber Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1911
  3. Seguin v. Maloney-Chambers Lumber Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1953
  4. Williams v. RaganOregon Supreme Court · 1944
  5. Belt Et Ux. v. MatsonOregon Supreme Court · 1926

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. High v. DavisOregon Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Putnam v. JenkinsOregon Supreme Court · 1955
  3. Ganiats Construction, Inc. v. HesseCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
  4. Wilson v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1956
  5. High v. DavisOregon Supreme Court · 1978

2 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