Klamath Lumber Co. v. Bamber

142 P. 359, 74 Or. 287, 1915 Ore. LEXIS 336
Oregon Supreme Court·Decided January 19, 1915·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinions

Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice McBride.

1. The effect of the order abating the action and awarding costs and disbursements to defendants was to dismiss and terminate the case. Plaintiff could not after such a judgment proceed in the same action by paying up its delinquent fees and making its reports. As used in reference to actions at law, the word “abate” means that the action is utterly dead and cannot be revived except by commencing anew: Bouvier’s Law Diet., tit. “Abatement”; "Words & Phrases, same title.

Plaintiff’s action was terminated by the judgment, and it is eo instante liable to a levy of execution for costs.

The motion is overruled.

Motion to Dismiss Denied.

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

Klamath Lumber Co. v. Bamber, 142 P. 359, 74 Or. 287, 1915 Ore. LEXIS 336 (Or. 1915).

142 P. 359 (Klamath Lumber Co. v. Bamber) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

FARMERS INS. COMPANY OF OREGON v. Lotches
554 P.2d 169 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1976)
Transco Northwest, Inc. v. Allied Equities Corp.
552 P.2d 824 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1976)
Doherty v. Harris Pine Mills, Inc.
315 P.2d 566 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1957)
State Ex Rel. Meloy v. Barger
88 N.E.2d 392 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1949)
First National Bank v. Board of Supervisors
264 N.W. 281 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1935)
Noh v. Stoner
26 P.2d 1112 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1933)
Jarvis v. Chapman Properties, Inc.
147 So. 860 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1933)
Gray v. Central Florida Lumber Co.
141 So. 604 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1932)
Deschutes Co. v. Lara
270 P. 913 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1928)
Milton-Freewater & Hudson Bay Irrigation Co. v. Skeen
247 P. 756 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1926)
Watterson v. Owens River Canal Co.
210 P. 625 (California Supreme Court, 1922)
Vermont Farm Mach. Co. v. Hall
156 P. 1073 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1916)