¶1A single question was presented in this court, and that was, the action of the trial cou'rt in refusing to dismiss the appeal from the justice. By consenting to the rendition of a judgment in favor of the plaintiff by the justice for the amount claimed, the defendant, in effect, waived his answer and left no issue in the case to be tried, and from such a judgment no appeal lies. (La Societe v. Beardslee, 63 Cal. 160; Conniff v. Kahn, 54 Cal. 283.) The reason of this rule is plain. Courts are held to try real controversies between parties; but consent ends all contention, and leaves nothing for the court to do hut to see that the same is carried into effect. The circuit court, therefore, erred in refusing to dismiss the appeal, for which ité judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded to the court below with directions to sustain the motion.
22 Or. 495
Rader v. Barr
Decided May 6, 1892
Oregon Supreme Court · decided 1892-05-06
Grant county: James A. Fee, Judge. Plaintiff appeals. This action was commenced in justice’s court for Long Creek precinct, Grant county, Oregon. After the service of summons, the defendant appeared in said justice’s court and filed his answer denying each material allegation of the complaint.
Relies on La Societe Francaise D'Epargnes et de Prevoyance Mutuelle v. Beardslee · Conniff v. Kahn
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Reversed · Decided 1892-05-06
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently December 2006
1 federal appellate · 12 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →