De Golia v. Andersen

188 P. 164, 101 Or. 94
CourtOregon Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 9, 1921
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 188 P. 164 (De Golia v. Andersen) 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
De Golia v. Andersen, 188 P. 164, 101 Or. 94 (Or. 1921).

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

1. This is a motion to dismiss the appeal. Judgment was rendered and entered on Monday, November 3, 1919; the notice of appeal was served and filed January 3, 1920. It is contended by [97]*97respondent that the service and filing is one day late. Bespondent cites the following sections of the Code:

“An appeal to the Supreme Court, if not taken at the time of the rendition of the judgment or decree appealed from, or at the time of making the interlocutory order appealed from, shall he taken by serving and filing the notice of appeal within sixty (60) days from the entry of the judgment, order or decree appealed from * * ”: Section 550, L. O. L., as amended, Gen. Laws, 1913, Chapter 319.
“The time within which an act is to be done, as provided in this Code, shall be computed by excluding the first day and including the last, unless the last day falls upon Sunday * * or other nonjudicial day, in which case the last day shall * * be excluded”: Section 531, L. O. L.

The method of computing time within which a notice of appeal should be served and filed may be said to have been in a state of uncertainty until the case of United States Nat. Bank v. Shefler, 77 Or. 579 (143 Pac. 51, 152 Pac. 234), in which case it was held by this court, though not without dissent, that the day following the entry of a judgment was to be excluded in the computation of time.

This rule, having been generally accepted by the profession, wall be adhered to, although there are authorities holding a contrary doctrine.

Computing the time according to the rule in the case cited, the appellant is within the statute, and the motion to dismiss will be overruled.

Motion to Dismiss Overruled.

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

Related

Clostermann v. Reynolds
386 P.2d 468 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1963)
Beardsley v. Hill
348 P.2d 58 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1959)
Brackett, Exec. v. U.S. Nat. Bank
205 P.2d 167 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1948)
Preston v. State Industrial Accident Commission
149 P.2d 957 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1944)
Tracy v. Pioneer Trust Co.
151 P.2d 459 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1944)
Schaefer v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
120 P.2d 235 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1941)
Osborne v. Zimmerman
105 P.2d 1097 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1940)
Elliott v. Mosgrove
93 P.2d 1070 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1939)
In Re Stout's Estate
50 P.2d 768 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1935)
Phillips v. Elliott
25 P.2d 557 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1933)
Sevich v. State Industrial Accident Commission
20 P.2d 1085 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1933)
Steeves v. Steeves
9 P.2d 815 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1932)
State v. Hecker
221 P. 808 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1923)
Nevin-Frank Co. v. Hubert
214 P. 959 (Montana Supreme Court, 1923)
In re Riggs
207 P. 175 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1922)
Sargent v. Foland
207 P. 349 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1922)
Branch v. Lambert
205 P. 995 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
188 P. 164, 101 Or. 94, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-golia-v-andersen-or-1921.