Bestel v. Bestel

53 P.2d 525, 44 P.2d 1078, 153 Or. 100
CourtOregon Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 24, 1936
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 53 P.2d 525 (Bestel v. Bestel) 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
Bestel v. Bestel, 53 P.2d 525, 44 P.2d 1078, 153 Or. 100 (Or. 1936).

Opinions

KELLY, J.

A decree of divorce was entered herein and the custody of the minor child of the parties was then awarded to plaintiff. Subsequent orders concerning the custody of said child were made. On March 26, 1935, an order was made awarding the custody thereof to the defendant for a period of six months dating from the 1st day of March, 1935, and then to the plaintiff for six months beginning with the 1st day of September, 1935, and providing that his custody shall thereafter alternate between the two parents for periods of six months each until the child shall have arrived at the age of six years at which time a further order will be made by the court.

Plaintiff appeals from said order of March 26, 1935, has filed an undertaking upon appeal; and now presents an application for stay of proceedings pending appeal.

Assuming this to be a case governed by the final sentence of section 7-505, Oregon Code 1930, which provides that

“In cases not provided for in such subdivisions [subdivisions 1, 2, 3 and 4, section 7-504, ibid] when an appeal is perfected, with an undertaking for the appeal *102 only, proceedings shall be stayed as if the further undertaking thereof had been given”, the filing of plaintiff’s undertaking'on appeal operated to stay proceedings pending appeal: In re Vinton, 65 Or. 422 (132 P. 1165).

While the authorities in sister jurisdictions are in conflict as to the necessity of a special order by the court staying proceedings, after the filing of the required undertaking (3 C. J. Appeal and Error, section 1407, p. 1286), this court, in the case above cited, deemed such an order to be unnecessary, and we are not inclined to change the rule there announced.

Plaintiff’s application is denied.

Argued December 13, 1935; reversed January 14; rehearing denied March 24, 1936

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

Related

Strain v. Griffin
612 P.2d 106 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1981)
Scarth v. Scarth
315 P.2d 141 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1957)
Baranet v. Baranet
292 P.2d 793 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1956)
Blair v. Blair
260 P.2d 960 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1953)
Thompson v. Thompson
55 N.W.2d 329 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1952)
Rea v. Rea
245 P.2d 884 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1952)
Sakraida v. Sakraida
233 P.2d 762 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1951)
Shradar v. Shradar
214 P.2d 803 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1950)
Burk v. Burk
205 P.2d 583 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1949)
Leonard v. Hoppins
191 P.2d 990 (Montana Supreme Court, 1948)
Nelson v. Nelson
176 P.2d 648 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1946)
Leverich v. Leverich
152 P.2d 303 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1944)
Nichols v. Nichols
149 P.2d 572 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1944)
Washburn v. Washburn
122 P.2d 96 (California Court of Appeal, 1942)
In Re Workman's Estate
68 P.2d 479 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1936)
Bestel v. Bestel
53 P.2d 525 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1936)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
53 P.2d 525, 44 P.2d 1078, 153 Or. 100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bestel-v-bestel-or-1936.