Kimery v. Taylor

45 P. 771, 29 Or. 233, 1896 Ore. LEXIS 39
CourtOregon Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 18, 1896
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 45 P. 771 (Kimery v. Taylor) 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
Kimery v. Taylor, 45 P. 771, 29 Or. 233, 1896 Ore. LEXIS 39 (Or. 1896).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

1. The transcript contains no bill of exceptions, but the parties bave stipulated that tbe only issue involved is whether tbe defendant at tbe time the' action was commenced bad possession of the horses, and it is agreed that this question may be submitted upon tbe original evidence as taken and reported at tbe trial by the stenographer. Tbe question sought to be reviewed involves certain exceptions claimed to bave been taken and allowed to tbe admission of evidence, but these exceptions cannot become a part of tbe record of the cause until settled, allowed, and signed by tbe judge, and filed with tbe clerk: Hill’s Code, § 233. Tbe stipulation of facts by tbe parties cannot take the place of a bill of exceptions: Umatilla Irrigation Company v. Barnhart, 22 Or. 389 (30 Pac. 37).

2. Nor can tbe original evidence as taken and reported by tbe official stenographer, in tbe absence-of a certificate from tbe trial judge, be considered or reviewed on appeal: Singer Manufacturing Company v. Graham, 8 Or. 17.

3. In an action at law tbe assignment of alleged errors contained in tbe notice of appeal is tbe pleading, and tbe bill of exceptions is tbe proof by which tbe judgment of a trial court is reviewed on appeal, and without such proof we are confined to an examination of such errors as may appear [235]*235from an inspection of the record. The record discloses that the court passed upon all the material issues involved in the pleadings, and made its statement of the facts found as broad as the allegations of the complaint; that its statement of the law is deducible from the facts so found, and hence the findings support the judgment which is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Wallowa Law, Land & Abstract Co. v. McGaffee
84 P.2d 1116 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1938)
Latourette v. Miller
135 P. 327 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1913)
Lewis v. Clark
134 P. 1194 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
45 P. 771, 29 Or. 233, 1896 Ore. LEXIS 39, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kimery-v-taylor-or-1896.