Baillie v. Columbia Gold Mining Co.

Oregon Supreme Court

Baillie v. Columbia Gold Mining Co.

188 P. 973, 96 Or. 32, 1920 Ore. LEXIS 143

DecidedMarch 23, 1920

StatusPublished

This text of 188 P. 973 (Baillie v. Columbia Gold Mining Co.) 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.

Bluebook

Baillie v. Columbia Gold Mining Co., 188 P. 973, 96 Or. 32, 1920 Ore. LEXIS 143 (Or. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

McBRIDE, C. J.

For the reasons stated in a former appeal, from an order requiring defendant to produce [33]*33its books (95 Or. 609, 188 Pac. 418), we bold that the order is not appealable. It is not a final order, which, in effect, determines the suit, but is a mere interlocutory order which must await the final determination of the suit before it can be reviewed here, if appealable at all: Clay v. Clay, 56 Or. 538 (108 Pac. 119, 109 Pac. 129).

The appeal is dismissed. Dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

McBRIDE, C. J.

For the reasons stated in a former appeal, from an order requiring defendant to produce [33]*33its books (95 Or. 609, 188 Pac. 418), we bold that the order is not appealable. It is not a final order, which, in effect, determines the suit, but is a mere interlocutory order which must await the final determination of the suit before it can be reviewed here, if appealable at all: Clay v. Clay, 56 Or. 538 (108 Pac. 119, 109 Pac. 129).

The appeal is dismissed. Dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 P. 973, 96 Or. 32, 1920 Ore. LEXIS 143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baillie-v-columbia-gold-mining-co-or-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack