Hume v. Rogue River Packing Co.

83 P. 391, 51 Or. 237
CourtOregon Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 17, 1907
StatusPublished
Cited by47 cases

This text of 83 P. 391 (Hume v. Rogue River Packing Co.) 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
Hume v. Rogue River Packing Co., 83 P. 391, 51 Or. 237 (Or. 1907).

Opinions

Per Curiam.

The respondents seek by motion to have stricken from the transcript and files of this court in the above cause the testimony, exhibits and documentary evidence accompanying such transcript, assigning as grounds therefor: (1) That such testimony, documentary evidence and exhibits were not identified by the trial judge rendering the decree, as the law requires; (2) that such testimony, etc., are not certified as required by rule.l of this court; and (3) that there appears to be incorporated with such testimony the evidence of witnesses, including documents and exhibits, which was never given or admitted at the trial of the cause. The respondents also seek by a further motion, filed at the1 same time, to have stricken from the transcript a stipulation, entered into' between' counsel .for the parties, touching certain evidence it was desired’to have admitted.m .the,cause. ........ ...... ;■

[241]*2411. Referring to the first motion, the statute provides that “when an equity cause has gone to a final decree, the judge of the court rendering the decree shall, within ten days after the entry of the decree, by a proper certificate, identify all the evidence in the case, whether consisting of the testimony of the witnesses, documentary evidence or exhibits”: B. & C. Comp. § 827. We have not regarded this statute as mandatory (Osgood v. Osgood, 35 Or. 6: 56 Pac. 1017), and, there appearing to be some confusion touching the evidence, exhibits and documents proper to be brought to this court with the transcript, the motion will be allowed, with permission to the appellant to apply to the trial judge for the proper certificate respecting such testimony, etc., and for this sixty days’ time will be given. The certificate of the clerk can also.be obtained within the time, if deemed important.

2. As it pertains to the third ground, it will require an extended survey of all the evidence brought here, which is very voluminous, to determine what is proper and what is not. Hence it is deemed advisable, the cause being in equity, to leave the matter unsettled until the same is heard upon its merits.

3. Referring to the further motion, we are unable to determine with the information before us touching the propriety of striking out such stipulations. Hence this matter will also be postponed until the final hearing of the cause, with leave to renew the motion then.

The order will be entered in accordance with this opinion. Motion Allowed in Part.

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

Related

Kramer v. City of Lake Oswego
446 P.3d 1 (Oregon Supreme Court, 2019)
State v. Savastano
309 P.3d 1083 (Oregon Supreme Court, 2013)
NORTHWEST STEELHEADERS ASS'N v. Simantel
112 P.3d 383 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2005)
Marincovich v. Tarabochia
787 P.2d 562 (Washington Supreme Court, 1990)
State Ex Rel. State Land Board v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co.
582 P.2d 1352 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1978)
Smith Tug & Barge Co. v. Columbia-Pacific Towing Corp.
443 P.2d 205 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1968)
Sproul v. Gilbert
359 P.2d 543 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1961)
Conran v. Girvin
341 S.W.2d 75 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1960)
State Land Board v. SAUSE
342 P.2d 803 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1959)
People v. Johnson
7 Misc. 2d 385 (Lloyd Harbor Village Police Court, 1957)
Solberg v. State Treasurer
53 N.W.2d 49 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1952)
Bohn v. Albertson
238 P.2d 128 (California Court of Appeal, 1951)
Anthony v. Veatch
221 P.2d 575 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1950)
State Ex Rel. State Game Commission v. Red River Valley Co.
182 P.2d 421 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1945)
Miami Corporation v. State
173 So. 315 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1936)
Diversion Lake Club v. Heath
86 S.W.2d 441 (Texas Supreme Court, 1935)
Strandholm v. Barbey
26 P.2d 46 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1933)
Radich v. Fredrickson
10 P.2d 352 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1932)
Thomson v. Dana
52 F.2d 759 (D. Oregon, 1931)
State v. Erwin
138 So. 84 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
83 P. 391, 51 Or. 237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hume-v-rogue-river-packing-co-or-1907.