Bloch v. Sammons

Oregon Supreme Court

Bloch v. Sammons

55 P. 438, 37 Or. 600

CourtOregon Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 8, 1900

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 55 P. 438 (Bloch v. Sammons) 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

Bloch v. Sammons, 55 P. 438, 37 Or. 600 (Or. 1900).

Pincite

Opinions

Mr. Chief Justice Wolverton

delivered the opinion.

1. This is a motion by respondent Hubbell to remit the transcript of the above cause to the court below for the purpose of having the bill of exceptions there corrected to conform with the facts as they occurred at the trial. The question involved is purely a matter of practice. In the case of State ex rel.v. Estes, 34 Or. 196 (52 Pac. 571), it was held that the bill of exceptions may be corrected in the court below, notwithstanding the cause was pending on appeal. In that case there was an amendment nunc pro tunc by the lower court, and thereupon the amended bill was filed here, and the question came up on motion to strike it from the record. This we refused to do, and approved the practice there adopted. We think it the better one, and therefore deny the present motion to remit the transcript. Motion Overruled.

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

Mr. Chief Justice Wolverton

delivered the opinion.

1. This is a motion by respondent Hubbell to remit the transcript of the above cause to the court below for the purpose of having the bill of exceptions there corrected to conform with the facts as they occurred at the trial. The question involved is purely a matter of practice. In the case of State ex rel.v. Estes, 34 Or. 196 (52 Pac. 571), it was held that the bill of exceptions may be corrected in the court below, notwithstanding the cause was pending on appeal. In that case there was an amendment nunc pro tunc by the lower court, and thereupon the amended bill was filed here, and the question came up on motion to strike it from the record. This we refused to do, and approved the practice there adopted. We think it the better one, and therefore deny the present motion to remit the transcript. Motion Overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 P. 438, 37 Or. 600, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bloch-v-sammons-or-1900.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack