Coffin v. Hanner, Jennings & Co.

1 Or. 236
Oregon Supreme Court·Decided August 15, 1857·Published·Cited by 6 cases

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

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

1 Or. 236 (Coffin v. Hanner, Jennings & Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Broyles v. Estate of Brown
671 P.2d 94 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1983)
Wesley v. Woods
600 P.2d 421 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1979)
Gimbert v. Heinsath
5 Ohio Cir. Dec. 176 (Cuyahoga Circuit Court, 1896)
State ex rel. City of Lima v. Pohling
1 Ohio Cir. Dec. 271 (Allen Circuit Court, 1886)