Corbitt & Macleay v. Bauer

Oregon Supreme Court

Corbitt & Macleay v. Bauer

10 Or. 340

CourtOregon Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 15, 1882

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 10 Or. 340 (Corbitt & Macleay v. Bauer) 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

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

Pincite

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]*341by 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

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]*341by 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 Or. 340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/corbitt-macleay-v-bauer-or-1882.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack