Twitchell v. Risley

107 P. 459, 56 Or. 226, 1910 Ore. LEXIS 163
CourtOregon Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 1, 1910
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 107 P. 459 (Twitchell v. Risley) 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
Twitchell v. Risley, 107 P. 459, 56 Or. 226, 1910 Ore. LEXIS 163 (Or. 1910).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Slater

delivered the opinion of the court.

1. It has been held by this court that no appeal lies from a judgment or decree rendered by consent of the parties: Rader v. Barr, 22 Or. 495 (29 Pac. 889); Schmidt v. Oregon Gold Mining Co., 28 Or. 9 (40 Pac. 406, 1014: 52 Am. St. Rep. 759). In the latter case it was held that, strictly speaking, such a decree is not given by confession or for want of an answer, yet will [228]*228be governed by Section 548, B. & C. Comp. The purpose of .an appeal is to bring up for review an erroneous action of the trial court; but the trial court performs no judicial act when an order, decree, or judgment is entered by consent. No appeal can be taken by either party from such decision, since the error, if any, is his own, and not the court’s. 2 Pld. & Prac. 99.

2. By the stipulation in the record, the parties to this cause expressly agreed that the judgment from which the appeal is attempted to be prosecuted should be rendered; but defendant attempted to create or save a right to appeal therefrom by inserting in the stipulation a reservation to the effect that he should not be prejudiced thereby to appeal from the ruling of the court, sustaining the demurrer to his further and separate .answer. This right he never possessed. All the errors of law committed by the court during the course of a trial are merged in the judgment, from which the appeal, if any, is taken, and not from interlocutory orders. Defendant cannot appeal from the judgment because of the statute ,and he cannot waive that to which he had no right (Jones v. M. & G. R. R., 64 Ga. 446; McBride v. Hunter, 64 Ga. 655).

3. Parties cannot by agreement confer upon this court jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the cause. When a lack of jurisdiction appears upon the face of the record, it is the duty of the court to refuse to proceed further, and to dismiss the appeal on its own motion: Kesler v. Nice, 54 Or. 585 (104 Pac. 2).

The appeal therefore is dismissed.

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

Related

Thompson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
25 P.3d 387 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2001)
Rauda v. Oregon Roses, Inc.
986 P.2d 1157 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1999)
Russell v. Sheahan
927 P.2d 591 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1996)
State v. K. P.
921 P.2d 380 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1996)
State v. KP
921 P.2d 380 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1996)
In re the Marriage of Wrona
674 P.2d 1213 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1984)
Lee v. Lee
459 P.2d 442 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1969)
Rorvik v. Astoria Box & Paper Co.
299 P. 333 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1931)
Huyler v. Kohn
153 S.E. 460 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1930)
Basche-Sage Hdw. Co. v. De Wolfe
231 P. 135 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1925)
Schoren v. Schoren
214 P. 885 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1924)
Boyer v. Burton
149 P. 83 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1916)
Johnson v. Paulson
154 P. 685 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1916)
Plinsky v. Nolan
133 P. 71 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1913)
Tillamook City v. Tillamook County
109 P. 577 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1911)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
107 P. 459, 56 Or. 226, 1910 Ore. LEXIS 163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/twitchell-v-risley-or-1910.