Ogden v. Hoffman

Oregon Supreme Court

Ogden v. Hoffman

172 P. 503, 88 Or. 503

CourtOregon Supreme Court

DecidedApril 9, 1918

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 172 P. 503 (Ogden v. Hoffman) 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

Ogden v. Hoffman, 172 P. 503, 88 Or. 503 (Or. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

McBRIDE, O. J.

1, 2. Plaintiffs ’ rights under the first notice of appeal expired March 10, 1918, and that appeal having’ been perfected by service of notice and filing the required undertaking, the plaintiffs’ rights were exhausted and they could not take another appeal: Schmeer v. Schmeer, 16 Or. 243 (17 Pac. 864); Hill v. Lewis, 87 Or. 239 (170 Pac. 316), and many other cases. The service of the first notice upon one of the attorneys for defendant was sufficient.

The judgment for costs and disbursements was a separate proceeding arising upon an objection to the cost bill. It was heard separately and a separate judgment entered sustaining all plaintiffs’ objections thereto, so that plaintiffs had no right to appeal in that behalf and indeed have not attempted to do so.

The appeal will be dismissed with judgment against plaintiffs and their sureties for the costs of this proceeding. Appeal Dismissed.

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

McBRIDE, O. J.

1, 2. Plaintiffs ’ rights under the first notice of appeal expired March 10, 1918, and that appeal having’ been perfected by service of notice and filing the required undertaking, the plaintiffs’ rights were exhausted and they could not take another appeal: Schmeer v. Schmeer, 16 Or. 243 (17 Pac. 864); Hill v. Lewis, 87 Or. 239 (170 Pac. 316), and many other cases. The service of the first notice upon one of the attorneys for defendant was sufficient.

The judgment for costs and disbursements was a separate proceeding arising upon an objection to the cost bill. It was heard separately and a separate judgment entered sustaining all plaintiffs’ objections thereto, so that plaintiffs had no right to appeal in that behalf and indeed have not attempted to do so.

The appeal will be dismissed with judgment against plaintiffs and their sureties for the costs of this proceeding. Appeal Dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 P. 503, 88 Or. 503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ogden-v-hoffman-or-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack