Crawford v. Wist

39 P. 218, 26 Or. 596
CourtOregon Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 15, 1895
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 39 P. 218 (Crawford v. Wist) 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
Crawford v. Wist, 39 P. 218, 26 Or. 596 (Or. 1895).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The tendency of the court as indicated by recent decisions is to construe notices of appeal liberally, and hold them sufficient if by fair construction or reasonable intendment the court can say that the appeal is taken from the judgment in a particular case. But a notice of appeal like the one in question, which contains no other description of the judgment than that it was rendered for costs and disbursements in an action between certain parties at a specified term of the circuit court, and which does not. even state the nature of the action, or contain any references by the aid of which the particular judgment can be identified, is manifestly so indefinite and uncertain that the court cannot say that the appeal was taken in any particular case, for a judgment in any case between the same parties for costs and disbursements rendered at any time during the term would satisfy the description in the notice. If, therefore, it be conceded that a judgment rendered on the sixth day of September, eighteen hundred and ninety-three, was rendered at the August term of the court, a fact which does not appear from the transcript, the other defects above mentioned render the notice ineffectual for the purpose intended. However liberal a rule we may be inclined to adopt in the construction of notices of appeal, we cannot dispense with such a notice as will distinctly make known the judgment [598]*598appealed from. It follows that the appeal must be dismissed, and it is so ordered. Dismissed.

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

Related

Lee v. Gram
196 P. 373 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1922)
Koppitz v. United States
272 F. 96 (Ninth Circuit, 1921)
McFarland v. Hueners
190 P. 584 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1920)
Meridianal Co. v. Bourne
160 P. 1151 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1916)
Raiha v. Coos Bay Coal & Fuel Co.
143 P. 892 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1915)
Keady v. United Rys. Co.
100 P. 658 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1910)
Kingsbury v. Pacific Coal & Transp. Co.
3 Alaska 41 (D. Alaska, 1906)
United States v. Larsen
2 Alaska 577 (D. Alaska, 1905)
Idaho Comstock Mining & Milling Co. v. Lundstrum
74 P. 975 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1903)
Mendenhall v. Elwert
52 P. 22 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1900)
Beck v. Thompson
57 P. 419 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1899)
Hamilton v. Butler
54 P. 200 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1898)
Allen v. Byerly
48 P. 474 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1897)
State v. Hanlon
48 P. 353 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1897)
Duffy v. McMahon
47 P. 787 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1897)
Thomas v. Bowen
45 P. 768 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1896)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
39 P. 218, 26 Or. 596, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crawford-v-wist-or-1895.