Alberson v. Mahaffey
This text of 6 Or. 412 (Alberson v. Mahaffey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The undertaking on appeal is defective. There is no affidavit of the surety as to his qualifications, ánd no recital or averment whatever of his qualifications. This case is within that of Holcomb v. Teal, 4 Or. 352, which requires the affidavits of the sureties in an undertaking on appeal to be filed contemporaneously with the filing of the undertaking. The motion to dismiss the appeal because of the insufficiency of the undertaking, should be allowed. No amendment of the undertaking, or leave to now perfect the appeal by filing a new undertaking, can be allowed. The rule announced on this subject in Cross v. Chichester, 4 Or. 114, should apply to this case. The application to file a new undertaking ought to have been made in the form of a cross-motion before the hearing of the motion to dismiss.
Motion to dismiss allowed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
6 Or. 412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alberson-v-mahaffey-or-1877.