¶1That the substitution could not be allowed. It would be equivalent to supplying a judicial record of the circuit court that had been lost or destroyed, which that court only had the power to do, in the first instance. And it would be taking cognizance of such record, after thus supplying it, *341by copy authenticated by affidavit, instead of official certificate of the clerk as by the law required. Motion to substitute denied and cross-motion to dismiss appeal allowed.
10 Or. 340
Corbitt & Macleay v. Bauer
Decided October 15, 1882
Oregon Supreme Court · decided 1882-10-15
Motion by appellants to substitute sworn copy for- an original exhibit that had been lost or destroyed before the transcript for appeal was sent up. Cross-motion by respondents to dismiss appeal for such defect in transcript; Held,
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1914
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1882-10-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →