Blumauer-Frank Drug Co. v. Horticultural Fire Relief

Oregon Supreme Court

Blumauer-Frank Drug Co. v. Horticultural Fire Relief

112 P. 1084, 59 Or. 58, 1911 Ore. LEXIS 104

CourtOregon Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 24, 1911

StatusPublished

Cited by27 cases

This text of 112 P. 1084 (Blumauer-Frank Drug Co. v. Horticultural Fire Relief) 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

Blumauer-Frank Drug Co. v. Horticultural Fire Relief, 112 P. 1084, 59 Or. 58, 1911 Ore. LEXIS 104 (Or. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice Eakin.

Judgment for the plaintiff was rendered upon the verdict in this action. Thereupon defendant moved the court to set aside the judgment and grant a new trial, which was allowed by the court. From that order plaintiff appeals, and defendant moves to dismiss the same, because the order appealed from is not a final judgment.

1, 2. As held in Portland v. Gaston, 38 Or. 533 (63 Pac. 1051), the provision of the constitution (Article VII, Section 6) that the Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction only to review the final decisions of the circuit courts, is not self-executing. The cases that may be appealed must be prescribed by the legislature, and it may determine what shall constitute a final decision. The right of appeal is statutory: State v. Security Savings Co., 28 Or. 410 (43 Pac. 162); School District v. Irwin, 34 Or. 431 (56 Pac. 413); Sears v. Dunbar, 50 Or. 36 (91 Pac. 145). The provisions of Section 548, L. O. L., necessarily include all judgments and decrees, and define certain other orders that shall be deemed judgments or decrees. This includes the amendment (Laws 1907, p. 313), providing that an order setting aside a judgment and granting a new trial shall, for the purpose of being reviewed, be deemed a final judgment, and is not uncoustitutional.

The motion to dismiss is denied. Denied.

Mr. Justice Burnett, having tried this case in the lower court, took no part in its decision.

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

Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice Eakin.

Judgment for the plaintiff was rendered upon the verdict in this action. Thereupon defendant moved the court to set aside the judgment and grant a new trial, which was allowed by the court. From that order plaintiff appeals, and defendant moves to dismiss the same, because the order appealed from is not a final judgment.

1, 2. As held in Portland v. Gaston, 38 Or. 533 (63 Pac. 1051), the provision of the constitution (Article VII, Section 6) that the Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction only to review the final decisions of the circuit courts, is not self-executing. The cases that may be appealed must be prescribed by the legislature, and it may determine what shall constitute a final decision. The right of appeal is statutory: State v. Security Savings Co., 28 Or. 410 (43 Pac. 162); School District v. Irwin, 34 Or. 431 (56 Pac. 413); Sears v. Dunbar, 50 Or. 36 (91 Pac. 145). The provisions of Section 548, L. O. L., necessarily include all judgments and decrees, and define certain other orders that shall be deemed judgments or decrees. This includes the amendment (Laws 1907, p. 313), providing that an order setting aside a judgment and granting a new trial shall, for the purpose of being reviewed, be deemed a final judgment, and is not uncoustitutional.

The motion to dismiss is denied. Denied.

Mr. Justice Burnett, having tried this case in the lower court, took no part in its decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 P. 1084, 59 Or. 58, 1911 Ore. LEXIS 104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blumauer-frank-drug-co-v-horticultural-fire-relief-or-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack