Close v. Close

42 P. 128, 28 Or. 108, 1895 Ore. LEXIS 98
Oregon Supreme Court·Decided October 28, 1895·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is a motion to dismiss the appeal because the abstract of the record required by the rules of this court has not been served or filed. The defendant undertakés to excuse his failure in this regard on the ground that the evidence taken in the court below and upon which the decree was based has been lost or misplaced. There is no rule requiring the evidence to be printed in the abstract, and, besides, it is the duty of the appellant to bring into this court a perfect record, and if any part thereof has been lost or mislaid it must be supplied in the court below, and if not so supplied within a reasonable time the appeal will be dismissed: Wolf v. Smith, 6 Or. 74; Buckman v. Whitney, 28 Cal. 555; Boyd v. Burrell, 60 Cal. 280. The transcript was filed on March fifth, eighteen hundred and ninety-five, and the lost record has not been supplied, nor has there been any effort made in that direction so far as we have been advised. The appeal must therefore be dismissed, and it is so ordered. Dismissed.

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

Close v. Close, 42 P. 128, 28 Or. 108, 1895 Ore. LEXIS 98 (Or. 1895).

42 P. 128 (Close v. Close) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Berg v. Goldstone
259 P. 916 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1927)
Walker v. Fireman's Fund Insurance
257 P. 701 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1927)
Yamhill Sanitary Public Market Co. v. Strowbridge
161 P. 93 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1916)
Morrison v. Hall
104 P. 963 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1909)
Lowery v. Lowery
115 N.W. 1035 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1908)
Reynolds v. Jackson County
53 P. 1072 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1898)