Moss v. Woodcock

Oregon Supreme Court

Moss v. Woodcock

220 P. 1017, 109 Or. 597, 1923 Ore. LEXIS 130

CourtOregon Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 11, 1923

StatusPublished

Cited by25 cases

This text of 220 P. 1017 (Moss v. Woodcock) 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

Moss v. Woodcock, 220 P. 1017, 109 Or. 597, 1923 Ore. LEXIS 130 (Or. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

MoBRIDE, C. J.

This was a civil action in which the amount in controversy was less than $250. The appeal in this case was perfected and the transcript filed in this court on the thirteenth day of July, 1923, within the time as extended by orders of the Circuit Court.

Chapter 153, Laws of Oregon of 1923, providing that no appeal “shall be taken or allowed” where the amount in controversy is less than $250, went into effect on May 23, 1923. A motion to dismiss the appeal for this and other reasons was filed October 4, 1923, and was overruled without a written [598]*598opinion. Since that date we have had occasion, in Libby v. Southern Pac. Co., ante, p. 449 (219 Pac. 604), and upon a motion- for rehearing in the same case in which an opinion was filed on this date, critically to examine and consider the effect of the statute of 1923 above cited, and have arrived at the conclusion that it applies as well to pending cases as to those in which appeals had not been perfected, and that we are without jurisdiction to hear this appeal.

In view of the fact that Lake County is remote from the capital we feel that it would be involving counsel and the parties in needless expense and trouble to allow this appeal to stand for final hearing, when at the very threshold of such hearing we would be obliged to decline jurisdiction of the appeal, and it is therefore dismissed.

Appeal Dismissed. Rehearing Denied.

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

MoBRIDE, C. J.

This was a civil action in which the amount in controversy was less than $250. The appeal in this case was perfected and the transcript filed in this court on the thirteenth day of July, 1923, within the time as extended by orders of the Circuit Court.

Chapter 153, Laws of Oregon of 1923, providing that no appeal “shall be taken or allowed” where the amount in controversy is less than $250, went into effect on May 23, 1923. A motion to dismiss the appeal for this and other reasons was filed October 4, 1923, and was overruled without a written [598]*598opinion. Since that date we have had occasion, in Libby v. Southern Pac. Co., ante, p. 449 (219 Pac. 604), and upon a motion- for rehearing in the same case in which an opinion was filed on this date, critically to examine and consider the effect of the statute of 1923 above cited, and have arrived at the conclusion that it applies as well to pending cases as to those in which appeals had not been perfected, and that we are without jurisdiction to hear this appeal.

In view of the fact that Lake County is remote from the capital we feel that it would be involving counsel and the parties in needless expense and trouble to allow this appeal to stand for final hearing, when at the very threshold of such hearing we would be obliged to decline jurisdiction of the appeal, and it is therefore dismissed.

Appeal Dismissed. Rehearing Denied.

In the Matter of Federal Shopping Way, Inc., a Washington Corporation, Debtor. Bank of California, N. A., Tacoma, Washington v. Thomas L. McQuaid Lifetime Federal Savings & Loan Association v. Thomas L. McQuaid Evergreen First Federal Savings & Loan Association v. Thomas L. McQuaid Republic National Life Insurance Company v. Thomas L. McQuaid

457 F.2d 176 (First Circuit, 1972)

Standard Lumber Co. v. Commissioner

35 T.C. 192 (U.S. Tax Court, 1960)

Berliner & Schnitzer v. Roberts

349 P.2d 498 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1960)

Gibbs v. Multnomah County

346 P.2d 636 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1959)

M & M Woodworking Co. v. State Tax Commission

314 P.2d 272 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1959)

In Re Estate of TA Stoll

217 P.2d 595 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1950)

Smith v. Little

214 P.2d 345 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1950)

Brown v. Irwin

212 P.2d 729 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1949)

Hoffart v. Lindquist & Paget Mortgage Co.

189 P.2d 592 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1948)

Hartley v. Utah Const. Co.

106 F.2d 953 (Ninth Circuit, 1939)

Investors Syndicate v. Smith

105 F.2d 611 (Ninth Circuit, 1939)

Portland v. Hirsch-Weis Mfg. Co.

263 P. 901 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1927)

Outcault Advertising Co. v. Jones

239 P. 1113 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1925)

Lowe v. Brown

235 P. 395 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1925)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 P. 1017, 109 Or. 597, 1923 Ore. LEXIS 130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moss-v-woodcock-or-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack