Osburn v. De Force

Oregon Supreme Court

Osburn v. De Force

262 P. 222, 123 Or. 352

DecidedSeptember 14, 1927

StatusPublished

This text of 262 P. 222 (Osburn v. De Force) 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

Osburn v. De Force, 262 P. 222, 123 Or. 352 (Or. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

COSHOW, J.

This matter comes on to be heard on the motion of defendant to recall and correct the mandate. The mandate remanded the case for a new trial. Defendant complains because a new trial was ordered. We are not given the benefit of any authority or citations of authorities supporting the motion. We refused to try the question of damages demanded in the counterclaim of the defendant because we thought it could be better tried by a jury. If the court has erred in permitting the complaint to be amended .giR u;-2l-od. mJh afijdp^d-t-,ss-ipfiapt.irrg -tire-motion, that eri(u>r can be corrected upon appeJL Thst question is riot properly raised by the motion. We do not think that the mandate is erroneous. We decline to express an (opinion upon the question of the amended complaint which, ;ie. mot before us. The propriety of the amended complaint determined upon a motion to recall and correct C mandate. For these reasons the motion to recall and correct the mandate is denied.

Motion Denied.

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

COSHOW, J.

This matter comes on to be heard on the motion of defendant to recall and correct the mandate. The mandate remanded the case for a new trial. Defendant complains because a new trial was ordered. We are not given the benefit of any authority or citations of authorities supporting the motion. We refused to try the question of damages demanded in the counterclaim of the defendant because we thought it could be better tried by a jury. If the court has erred in permitting the complaint to be amended .giR u;-2l-od. mJh afijdp^d-t-,ss-ipfiapt.irrg -tire-motion, that eri(u>r can be corrected upon appeJL Thst question is riot properly raised by the motion. We do not think that the mandate is erroneous. We decline to express an (opinion upon the question of the amended complaint which, ;ie. mot before us. The propriety of the amended complaint determined upon a motion to recall and correct C mandate. For these reasons the motion to recall and correct the mandate is denied.

Motion Denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 P. 222, 123 Or. 352, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/osburn-v-de-force-or-1927.