Corbitt & Macleay v. Bauer

10 Or. 340
Oregon Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1882·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam:

That the substitution could not be allowed. It would be equivalent to supplying a judicial record of the circuit court that had been lost or destroyed, which that court only had the power to do, in the first instance. And it would be taking cognizance of such record, after thus supplying it, [341] by copy authenticated by affidavit, instead of official certificate of the clerk as by the law required. Motion to substitute denied and cross-motion to dismiss appeal allowed.

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

Corbitt & Macleay v. Bauer, 10 Or. 340 (Or. 1882).

10 Or. 340 (Corbitt & Macleay v. Bauer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

West Coast Lumber Co. v. Brady
137 P. 764 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1914)