Strickler v. Portland Ry., L. & P. Co.

144 P. 1193, 79 Or. 526, 1916 Ore. LEXIS 138
CourtOregon Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 14, 1916
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 144 P. 1193 (Strickler v. Portland Ry., L. & P. Co.) 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
Strickler v. Portland Ry., L. & P. Co., 144 P. 1193, 79 Or. 526, 1916 Ore. LEXIS 138 (Or. 1916).

Opinions

Mr. Justice Moore

delivered the opinion of the court.

1. This is a motion to dismiss an appeal on the ground that the notice thereof was not served within 60 days from the time the judgment was rendered. It appears from the affidavits of plaintiff’s counsel that the cause having been tried and submitted to the jury they returned a verdict herein for the defendant on December 5, 1913, at 5:25 p. m., and after the clerk’s office had been closed for the day. The certificate of the clerk shows that the judgment was entered on the following day at 2:10 p. m. The notice of appeal was served and filed February 4, 1914. The statute prescribing the time of rendering and recording judgments as far as involved herein reads:

“If the trial be by jury, judgment shall be given by the court in conformity with the verdict and so entered by the clerk within the day on which the verdict is returned”: Section 201, L. O. L.

[528]*528In Casner v. Hoskins, 64 Or. 254, 281 (128 Pac. 841, 850), in referring to such enactment, it is said:

“This clause of the statute was probably designed to create a lien as soon as possible after a verdict is rendered, but whether the provision is mandatory or ministerial is not deemed to be important, for the term ‘within the day’ evidently means within 24 hours, otherwise a verdict returned just before midnight would be ineffectual unless a judgment could be entered thereon before the close of the last moment of that day. Such a rule would be a travesty on justice. ’ ’

The notice was served within the time limited, and this being so, the motion is denied.

Motion Denied.

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

Related

Rich v. Tite-Knot Pine Mill
421 P.2d 370 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1966)
Fuller v. Blanc
83 P.2d 434 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1938)
Riley v. Good
18 P.2d 222 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1933)
Haberly v. Farmers' Mutual Fire Relief Ass'n
294 P. 594 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1930)
Ashmun v. Nichols
178 P. 234 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1919)
Watts v. Spokane, P. & S. Ry. Co.
171 P. 901 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1918)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
144 P. 1193, 79 Or. 526, 1916 Ore. LEXIS 138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/strickler-v-portland-ry-l-p-co-or-1916.