Davidson v. Almeda Mines Co.

142 P. 778, 71 Or. 516, 1914 Ore. LEXIS 203

Opinion

Opinion

Per Curiam.

By an unbroken line of authorities this court has held that the denial of a motion for a new trial is not an appealable order, and the same rule applied to orders granting a new trial until the amendment of 1907, expressly making an order allowing a new trial from which an appeal could be taken. In the case of Oldland v. Oregon Coal & Navigation Co., 55 Or. 340 (99 Pac. 423, 102 Pac. 596), Mr. Chief Justice Moore speaking for the court, said this amendment limited appeals to an order granting a new trial, and that rule would not be extended. In Stark v. Epler, 59 Or. 263 (117 Pac. 278), this court, through Mr. Justice Burnett, said:

“The defendants also urge that the court erred in overruling their motion for a new trial, but, as said by Mr. Justice Moore in First Nat. Bank v. McCullough, 50 Or. 508, 515 [93 Pac. 366, 369, 126 Am. St. Rep. 758, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1105], ‘the rule is settled in this state that the action of a court in granting or denying a motion for a new trial is not a final order from which an appeal lies. This principle has so often been announced that it is unnecessary to cite the cases which uphold the doctrine. ’ The doctrine of that case * * is not disturbed by Section 548, L. O. L., as to orders denying new trials, * * and does not refer to refusals to rehear any case.”

The order from which this appeal is taken is not an appealable one, and the motion to dismiss must be sustained. Appeal Dismissed.