Cauldwell v. Bingham & Shelley Co.

155 P. 190, 84 Or. 257, 1917 Ore. LEXIS 229
CourtOregon Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 20, 1917
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 155 P. 190 (Cauldwell v. Bingham & Shelley 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
Cauldwell v. Bingham & Shelley Co., 155 P. 190, 84 Or. 257, 1917 Ore. LEXIS 229 (Or. 1917).

Opinions

Mr. Justice Harris

delivered the opinion of the court.

1. Within five days after the service of the undertaking on appeal the adverse party shall except to the sureties in the undertaking, or be deemed to have waived the right to except. From the expiration of the time allowed to except to the sureties, “the appeal shall be deemed perfected”: Section 550, L. O. L., as amended by Chapter 319, Laws of 1913. The fifth day after September 28, when the undertaking was filed, fell on Sunday, October 3, and consequently the appeal became perfected with the expiration of Monday, October 4: Pringle Falls Power Company v. Patterson, 65 Or. 474 (128 Pac. 820, 132 Pac. 527).

2. Unless the time is extended by an appropriate order of the court the appellant must file the transcript within thirty days after the appeal is perfected: Section 554, L. O. L., as amended by Chapter 320 of Laws of 1913. The statute allows thirty days to file the transcript regardless of whether that period terminates before or after the commencement of a new term of court ; and when the transcript was filed on October 28, it was filed within thirty days after the appeal was perfected. The bill of exceptions was filed in time: West v. McDonald, 74 Or. 421 (144 Pac. 655).

3. The respondents formally consented to the delay in filing the printed abstract of record and cannot now complain. See St. Martin v. Hendershott, 82 Or. 58 (151 Pac. 706). The motion to dismiss is denied.

Motion Denied.

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

Related

Browning v. Terminal Ice & Cold Storage Co.
360 P.2d 630 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1961)
Beardsley v. Hill
348 P.2d 58 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1959)
McKay v. Pacific Building Materials Co.
68 P.2d 127 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1937)
Coomer v. Supple Investment Co.
274 P. 302 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1929)
Oregon Box & Mfg. Co. v. Jones Lumber Co.
244 P. 313 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1926)
Pacific States Lumber Co. v. Bargar
10 F.2d 335 (Ninth Circuit, 1926)
Speight v. Simonsen
239 P. 542 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1925)
Ramp v. Osborne
239 P. 112 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1925)
Gray v. Hammond Lumber Co.
234 P. 261 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1924)
Warner v. Synnes
235 P. 305 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1924)
Rorvik v. North Pac. Lumber Co.
190 P. 331 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1920)
Chandler v. Todd
188 P. 161 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1920)
Camenzind v. Freeland Furniture Co.
174 P. 139 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1918)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
155 P. 190, 84 Or. 257, 1917 Ore. LEXIS 229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cauldwell-v-bingham-shelley-co-or-1917.