Smith v. Director

Oregon Supreme Court

Smith v. Director

165 P. 1171, 84 Or. 631, 1917 Ore. LEXIS 273

CourtOregon Supreme Court

DecidedJune 26, 1917

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 165 P. 1171 (Smith v. Director) 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

Smith v. Director, 165 P. 1171, 84 Or. 631, 1917 Ore. LEXIS 273 (Or. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

In Banc.

Mr. Justice Benson

delivered the opinion of the court.

1. The transcript discloses that the notice of appeal was filed February 14, 1917, hut does not contain any proof of service thereof. Appellant has filed his affidavit to the effect that he did serve the notice of appeal and file proof thereof, hut that such proof was lost or mislaid in the clerk’s office. Since the pres ence of such proof in the transcript is jurisdictional (Wolf v. Smith, 6 Or. 73), the motion must he allowed and the appeal is dismissed. Appeal Dismissed.

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

In Banc.

Mr. Justice Benson

delivered the opinion of the court.

1. The transcript discloses that the notice of appeal was filed February 14, 1917, hut does not contain any proof of service thereof. Appellant has filed his affidavit to the effect that he did serve the notice of appeal and file proof thereof, hut that such proof was lost or mislaid in the clerk’s office. Since the pres ence of such proof in the transcript is jurisdictional (Wolf v. Smith, 6 Or. 73), the motion must he allowed and the appeal is dismissed. Appeal Dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 P. 1171, 84 Or. 631, 1917 Ore. LEXIS 273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-director-or-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack