St. Helens Lumber Co. v. Evans

175 P. 612, 90 Or. 71, 1918 Ore. LEXIS 177
CourtOregon Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 22, 1918
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 175 P. 612 (St. Helens Lumber Co. v. Evans) 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
St. Helens Lumber Co. v. Evans, 175 P. 612, 90 Or. 71, 1918 Ore. LEXIS 177 (Or. 1918).

Opinion

OLSON, J.

1. No bill of exceptions was filed by plaintiff. Two typewritten sheets signed by the court reporter, purporting to state what occurred upon the presentation of plaintiff’s motion to dismiss appeal, accompany the transcript. These sheets are not called a bill of exceptions. They lack the certificate of the trial judge and wholly fail to fulfil the requirements of a bill of exceptions.

2,3. The only thing before us therefore is the original papers and these on their face are regular, with the .exception that the docket of the Justice Court shows no entry of allowance of appeal. This, however, does not defeat an appeal otherwise regular: Jacobs v. Oren, 30 Or. 593 (48 Pac. 431). Moreover the docket does contain a reference to the appeal being taken and an order discharging attachment upon the giving of the appeal bond, which is probably equivalent to [73]*73docket entry of allowance of appeal. The motion is further based upon the contention that the certificate was defective under Section 2463, L. O. L., which provides that the transcript shall contain a copy of all the material entries in the justice’s docket. The certificate in this case states that the transcript contains all the entries and the use of this broader term certainly includes the restrictive term “material.”

4, 5. As to the general point of the motion, such motion has no affidavit attached. "We have no bill of exceptions in order to show what transpired in the lower court, other than what is shown by the record. We find the original papers attached to the transcript, a sufficient certificate of the justice that the transcript contains all the docket entries and all .the original papers attached thereto, and so we must presume that the action of the trial court was regular in the absence of any affirmative showing on the part of appellant. It is well settled that it is within the discretion of the trial court after an appeal has once been taken, to cause papers omitted'from the record to be attached thereto, and in the absence of any affirmative showing to the contrary it will be presumed that the' court acted regularly and within the powers granted him.

Judgment affirmed. Afeirmed.

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

Related

France v. WEINSTEIN
355 P.2d 621 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1960)
Caveny v. ASHEIM
274 P.2d 281 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1954)
Cranston v. Stanfield
261 P. 52 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1927)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
175 P. 612, 90 Or. 71, 1918 Ore. LEXIS 177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/st-helens-lumber-co-v-evans-or-1918.