GROWMAN v. CITY OF ASTORIA

Oregon Supreme Court

GROWMAN v. CITY OF ASTORIA

220 P. 1118, 109 Or. 496, 1923 Ore. LEXIS 123

DecidedDecember 27, 1923

StatusPublished

This text of 220 P. 1118 (GROWMAN v. CITY OF ASTORIA) 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

GROWMAN v. CITY OF ASTORIA, 220 P. 1118, 109 Or. 496, 1923 Ore. LEXIS 123 (Or. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

These two cases were consolidated, for the purposes of trial, with the case of Christina Kallunki v. City of Astoria, but three separate verdicts were rendered, one in favor of Christina Kallunki for $1,000, one in favor of Hans Grow-man for $1,500, and one in favor of Nikula and Asaikainen for $300. Thereupon three separate appeals were perfected to this court and it was stipulated between the parties, substantially, that only one appeal, that of Christina Kallunki, should be heard here, and the other two cases should follow the course of the Kallunki appeal in all things.

The Kallunki appeal having been dismissed as an abandoned appeal, and judgment therein affirmed against the appellant and its sureties, these two cases will take the same course, and the judgment of the lower court in each case will be affirmed, as upon an abandoned appeal.

Appeal Dismissed and Judgment Aeeirmed.

Burnett, J., took no part in the consideration of this motion.

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

PER CURIAM.

These two cases were consolidated, for the purposes of trial, with the case of Christina Kallunki v. City of Astoria, but three separate verdicts were rendered, one in favor of Christina Kallunki for $1,000, one in favor of Hans Grow-man for $1,500, and one in favor of Nikula and Asaikainen for $300. Thereupon three separate appeals were perfected to this court and it was stipulated between the parties, substantially, that only one appeal, that of Christina Kallunki, should be heard here, and the other two cases should follow the course of the Kallunki appeal in all things.

The Kallunki appeal having been dismissed as an abandoned appeal, and judgment therein affirmed against the appellant and its sureties, these two cases will take the same course, and the judgment of the lower court in each case will be affirmed, as upon an abandoned appeal.

Appeal Dismissed and Judgment Aeeirmed.

Burnett, J., took no part in the consideration of this motion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 P. 1118, 109 Or. 496, 1923 Ore. LEXIS 123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/growman-v-city-of-astoria-or-1923.