Kesler v. Nice

104 P. 2, 54 Or. 585, 1909 Ore. LEXIS 88
CourtOregon Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 5, 1909
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 104 P. 2 (Kesler v. Nice) 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
Kesler v. Nice, 104 P. 2, 54 Or. 585, 1909 Ore. LEXIS 88 (Or. 1909).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Slater

delivered the opinion of the court.

1. The jurisdiction of this court to review the decisions of the circuit court is expressly limited to such as are final decisions. Section 6, Article VII, Constitution of Oregon. Finality, therefore, must be put to the suit by the circuit court before an attempt can properly be made to have the decision therein revised in this court. Shirley v. Birch, 16 Or. 1, 4 (18 Pac. 344) ; Conrad v. Packing Co., 34 Or. 337 (49 Pac. 659: 52 Pac. 1134: 57 Pac. 1021). And it has been settled in this court that in suits for partition the only decree that is by the statute declared to be “effectual forever,” and “binding and conclusive,” and therefore final, is that entered upon confirmation of the report of referees. All. orders or decrees in the regular course of proceedings prior to that time are merely interlocutory. Sterling v. Sterling, 43 Or. 201 (72 Pac. 741). This is the only final decree contemplated by the statute, and the only one from which an appeal will lie. Bybee v. Summers, 4 Or. 354.

2. No objection to the jurisdiction of the court has been suggested by any of the parties, but the want of [587]*587jurisdiction is patent upon the face of the record; and, the subject-matter of the suit involving the title to realty, it is the duty of the court, at any stage of the proceedings, when the want of jurisdiction appears, to refuse to proceed further, and to dismiss the appeal. Evans v. Christian, 4 Or. 375; McKay v. Freeman, 6 Or. 449, 453; State v. McKinnon, 8 Or. 487, 492. The record should show affirmatively the proper taking of all steps, and the existence of all the facts necessary to confer jurisdiction upon the appellate court. 2 Cyc. 1025.

Since the printed abstract upon which the cause is being submitted by stipulation of the parties, in lieu of the transcript, shows that the decree is interlocutory, and not final, the appeal must be dismissed, and it is so ordered. Dismissed.

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

Related

Alperin v. Mayor and Tp. Committee of Middletown Tp.
219 A.2d 628 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1966)
Allen v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
199 A.2d 254 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1964)
Passaic Jr. Chamber, Com., Inc. v. Passaic Hous. Auth.
132 A.2d 813 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1957)
Pierro v. Baxendale
118 A.2d 401 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1955)
Lyon v. Mazeris
132 P.2d 982 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1942)
Benedict v. Harris
77 P.2d 442 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1938)
Lamm v. Silver Falls Timber Co.
291 P. 375 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1929)
Santiam Reclamation Co. v. Porter
268 P. 980 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1928)
Basche-Sage Hdw. Co. v. De Wolfe
231 P. 135 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1925)
Dippold v. Cathlamet Timber Co.
193 P. 909 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1920)
Clay v. Clay
108 P. 119 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1910)
Twitchell v. Risley
107 P. 459 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
104 P. 2, 54 Or. 585, 1909 Ore. LEXIS 88, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kesler-v-nice-or-1909.