Baillie v. Columbia Gold Mining Co.

188 P. 418, 95 Or. 609, 1920 Ore. LEXIS 72
Oregon Supreme Court·Decided March 30, 1920·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

McBRIDE, C. J.

The order is not appealable.

Section 548,.L. O. L., is as follows:

“ * * An order affecting a substantial right, and which in effect determines the action or suit so as to prevent a judgment or decree therein. * -* ”

The order did not “determine the action or suit so as to prevent a judgment or decree therein.” Nor does it come within any other of the causes upon which the section quoted predicates a right of appeal. It was purely interlocutory and could only be reviewed here, if at all, upon a final appeal bringing up the whole case.

It is claimed the order amounted to a peremptory writ of mandamus, but an examination of our mandamus statute discloses very slight resemblance between that proceeding and the course pursued here. While the complaint asked for a “mandatory injunction,” the order actually made amounted to no more than the one usually made against a reluctant defendant, who refused to produce documents required by the opposing party for use on the trial.

The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Dismissed.

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

Baillie v. Columbia Gold Mining Co., 188 P. 418, 95 Or. 609, 1920 Ore. LEXIS 72 (Or. 1920).

188 P. 418 (Baillie v. Columbia Gold Mining Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Baillie v. Columbia Gold Mining Co.
188 P. 973 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1920)