Home/Oregon Supreme Court/Kaller v. Spady

Kaller v. Spady

24 P.2d 351, 10 P.2d 1119, 144 Or. 206, 1933 Ore. LEXIS 52
CourtOregon Supreme Court
DecidedMay 18, 1933
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 24 P.2d 351 (Kaller v. Spady) 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
Kaller v. Spady, 24 P.2d 351, 10 P.2d 1119, 144 Or. 206, 1933 Ore. LEXIS 52 (Or. 1933).

Opinions

CAMPBELL, J.

On September 29, 1931, a' judgment was entered against the defendants.

On November 27, 1931, defendants filed notice of appeal.

On January 7,1932, an order was made, on stipulation of attorneys, that the appellants should have until February 15, 1932, in which to file their transcript in the supreme court.

On February 11,1932, an order was made, on stipulation of attorneys, extending the time to March 15, 1932, in which appellants might file their transcript in the supreme court.

On March 15, 1932, an order was mad^ on motion of appellants, extending the time in which the appellants might file their transcript in the supreme court to March 25, 1932.

It will be observed that the final order extending the time was made subsequent to thirty days after the appeal was perfected, but within the time extended by stipulation.

On March 24, 1932, the transcript was filed in the supreme court.

On April 5, 1932, respondents filed in this court a motion to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that the transcript was not filed within the time fixed by law, for the reason that the trial court had no jurisdiction to make an order extending the time in which to file the transcript in the superme court, subsequent to the expiration of thirty days after the appeal was perfected, notwithstanding the extension of time by stipulation.

*209 W. K. Royal and Robert Smith, both of Portland, for appellants. L. E. Schmitt, of Portland (Robert J. Creamer, of Portland, on the brief), for respondent.

Assuming that the other requirements of the statutes than those set out in the motion, regarding extensions of time, had been complied with, on the authority of Corbin v. Preston, 109 Or. 230 (212 P. 541), Cantrall v. Sterling Mine Co., 61 Or. 516 (122 P. 42), the motion to dismiss the appeal will be denied.

It is so ordered.

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

Related

In Re the Dissolution of the Marriage of Goger
557 P.2d 46 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1976)
Speer v. Turner
366 A.2d 93 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1976)
Carte v. Flury Buick-Jeep, Inc.
506 P.2d 701 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1973)
McGrath v. White Motor Corporation
484 P.2d 838 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1971)
Gowin v. Heider
391 P.2d 630 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1964)
Gould v. Transamerican Associates
167 A.2d 905 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1961)
Rees v. United States
187 F. Supp. 924 (D. Oregon, 1960)
Cook v. KINZUA PINE MILLS CO.
293 P.2d 717 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1956)
LEVENE ET UX. v. City of Salem
229 P.2d 255 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1951)
Moe v. Alsop
216 P.2d 686 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1950)
Wiggins v. Wiggins
148 P.2d 793 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1944)
Kuhnhausen v. Stadelman
149 P.2d 108 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1944)
Voyt v. Bekins Moving & Storage Co.
127 P.2d 360 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1941)
Condit v. Bodding
33 P.2d 240 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1934)
Kaller v. Spady
24 P.2d 351 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1933)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
24 P.2d 351, 10 P.2d 1119, 144 Or. 206, 1933 Ore. LEXIS 52, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaller-v-spady-or-1933.