State v. Horn

Oregon Supreme Court

State v. Horn

65 P. 1066, 39 Or. 152

CourtOregon Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 5, 1901

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 65 P. 1066 (State v. Horn) 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

State v. Horn, 65 P. 1066, 39 Or. 152 (Or. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is a motion to affirm a judgment. The transcript was filed at Pendleton on April 11, 1901, and on the tenth of May, in pursuance of the stipulation of the parties, the cause was transferred to Salem for argument. No brief has been filed by the appellants, however, and for this reason the attorney-general moves to affirm the judgment. No excuse is offered for the failure to file the brief, except that the rules of the court on that subject do not apply to cases for hearing at Pendleton. But Rule 32, which was framed by and adopted at the suggestion of a committee of the Eastern Oregon bar, provides that in such cases the appellant must serve a brief within thirty days after his appeal is perfected, and file the same in the appellate court at least ten days before the first of the term : 35 Or. 608. And as this rule has not been complied with, and no excuse presented for the delay, the judgment will be affirmed, on the authority of Blank v. Walker, 33 Or. 372 (53 Pac. 1133); Reynolds v. Jackson County, 33 Or. 422 (53 Pac. 1072); State v. Rowe, 36 Or. 79 (60 Pac. 203). Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

This is a motion to affirm a judgment. The transcript was filed at Pendleton on April 11, 1901, and on the tenth of May, in pursuance of the stipulation of the parties, the cause was transferred to Salem for argument. No brief has been filed by the appellants, however, and for this reason the attorney-general moves to affirm the judgment. No excuse is offered for the failure to file the brief, except that the rules of the court on that subject do not apply to cases for hearing at Pendleton. But Rule 32, which was framed by and adopted at the suggestion of a committee of the Eastern Oregon bar, provides that in such cases the appellant must serve a brief within thirty days after his appeal is perfected, and file the same in the appellate court at least ten days before the first of the term : 35 Or. 608. And as this rule has not been complied with, and no excuse presented for the delay, the judgment will be affirmed, on the authority of Blank v. Walker, 33 Or. 372 (53 Pac. 1133); Reynolds v. Jackson County, 33 Or. 422 (53 Pac. 1072); State v. Rowe, 36 Or. 79 (60 Pac. 203). Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 P. 1066, 39 Or. 152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-horn-or-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack