Coffin v. Hanner, Jennings & Co.

Oregon Supreme Court

Coffin v. Hanner, Jennings & Co.

1 Or. 236

CourtOregon Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 15, 1857

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 1 Or. 236 (Coffin v. Hanner, Jennings & 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

Coffin v. Hanner, Jennings & Co., 1 Or. 236 (Or. 1857).

Pincite

Opinions

Olney, J.

The plaintiff fails to prosecute his writ of error, and it is suggested that his attorney is detained away from this court by sickness. The Chief-Justice who tried this cause, reports that the claim was a very old one; and the evidence was such as to leave it doubtful whether the verdict is or is not in accordance with truth. It being uncertain whether the writ of error was not taken in good faith, the Chief-Justice hesitates, in a case of uncertain merits, to impose a discretionary penalty, and I am willing to defer to his opinion.

Judgment affirmed without penalty.

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

Olney, J.

The plaintiff fails to prosecute his writ of error, and it is suggested that his attorney is detained away from this court by sickness. The Chief-Justice who tried this cause, reports that the claim was a very old one; and the evidence was such as to leave it doubtful whether the verdict is or is not in accordance with truth. It being uncertain whether the writ of error was not taken in good faith, the Chief-Justice hesitates, in a case of uncertain merits, to impose a discretionary penalty, and I am willing to defer to his opinion.

Judgment affirmed without penalty.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Or. 236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coffin-v-hanner-jennings-co-or-1857.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack