Moorhouse v. Donica

11 P. 71, 13 Or. 435, 1886 Ore. LEXIS 40
CourtOregon Supreme Court
DecidedMay 24, 1886
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 11 P. 71 (Moorhouse v. Donica) 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
Moorhouse v. Donica, 11 P. 71, 13 Or. 435, 1886 Ore. LEXIS 40 (Or. 1886).

Opinion

Lord, J.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the Circuit Court dismissing an appeal from a Justice’s Court. The defect complained of is that the notice of appeal describes the judgment as rendered on the twenty-second day of December, whereas the transcript shows that it was rendered on the twenty-second day of November. It is manifest from the notice itself, the undertaking filed, and the transcript, that it was a mere clerical over[436]*436sight or mistake, and in no way could have injured or misled the respondent. All the papers and entries in the case seem to have been duly certified to the Circuit Court and filed, and the record discloses that the parties appeared, and that when the case came on regularly to be heard, upon motion of plaintiff and respondent, by his counsel, it was continued until the next term.

It seems to us, if the defect complained of was such that advantage could have been taken of it, the subsequent conduct of the plaintiff waived it. He made no objections to the notice served upon him, or the undertaking, or any other irregularity, if any existed, but appeared, and when the cause was called, interposed no motion to dismiss, or other objection, clearly showing he was there to proceed with the trial, unless for his own ■accommodation he could procure a continuance, which in fact was granted. The judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded for trial.

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

Related

Hulegaard v. Garrett
446 P.2d 975 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1968)
Lee v. Gram
196 P. 373 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1922)
McFarland v. Hueners
190 P. 584 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1920)
Rohrbacher v. Strain
176 P. 990 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1920)
Holton v. Holton
129 P. 532 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1913)
MacMahon v. Hudd
119 P. 348 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1912)
Keady v. United Rys. Co.
100 P. 658 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1910)
Allen v. Byerly
48 P. 474 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1897)
Moorhouse v. Donaca
13 P. 112 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1887)
Lancaster v. McDonald
12 P. 374 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1886)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
11 P. 71, 13 Or. 435, 1886 Ore. LEXIS 40, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moorhouse-v-donica-or-1886.