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

Oregon Supreme Court

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

159 P. 974, 88 Or. 219

CourtOregon Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 19, 1916

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 159 P. 974 (Wallace 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

Wallace v. Portland Ry., L. & P. Co., 159 P. 974, 88 Or. 219 (Or. 1916).

Pincite

Opinions

Opinion

PEE CUEIAM.

1. The plaintiff, on September 17, 1915, obtained a judgment against the defendant, from which it perfected an appeal within 60 days. Several extensions of time in which to file a brief were granted the defendant’s counsel; the last enlargement expiring June 10,1916. Fourteen days thereafter the plaintiff’s counsel moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that no brief had then been filed by the appellant. Many affidavits made on behalf of the respective parties have been filed. From these sworn statements it appears that an indictment had been returned against one of the plaintiff’s witnesses for perjury alleged to have been committed at the trial of this action and against the plaintiff for subornation of perjury. Based upon these charges the defendant’s counsel moved in the lower court to set aside the judgment, which motion was denied. Thereafter the defendant’s brief was filed in this court. The subsequent proceed[221]*221ings against the plaintiff and her witness were so unusual as to excuse the neglect of defendant’s counsel in failing to comply with the rules of this court as to the filing of the brief.

For this reason the motion to dismiss the appeal is denied, and the filing of the brief is approved as of this date. Motion Denied.

Reversed and remanded March 26, 1918.

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

Opinion

PEE CUEIAM.

1. The plaintiff, on September 17, 1915, obtained a judgment against the defendant, from which it perfected an appeal within 60 days. Several extensions of time in which to file a brief were granted the defendant’s counsel; the last enlargement expiring June 10,1916. Fourteen days thereafter the plaintiff’s counsel moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that no brief had then been filed by the appellant. Many affidavits made on behalf of the respective parties have been filed. From these sworn statements it appears that an indictment had been returned against one of the plaintiff’s witnesses for perjury alleged to have been committed at the trial of this action and against the plaintiff for subornation of perjury. Based upon these charges the defendant’s counsel moved in the lower court to set aside the judgment, which motion was denied. Thereafter the defendant’s brief was filed in this court. The subsequent proceed[221]*221ings against the plaintiff and her witness were so unusual as to excuse the neglect of defendant’s counsel in failing to comply with the rules of this court as to the filing of the brief.

For this reason the motion to dismiss the appeal is denied, and the filing of the brief is approved as of this date. Motion Denied.

Reversed and remanded March 26, 1918.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 P. 974, 88 Or. 219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wallace-v-portland-ry-l-p-co-or-1916.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack