Fleming v. Pattison

Decided September 22, 1914

Oregon Supreme Court · decided 1914-09-22

From Lane: Lawrence T. Harris, Judge. In Banc. Statement Per Curiam:. This is a motion to dismiss an appeal in the case of Margaret J. Fleming and Mark T. Fleming, her husband, William T. Pattison and Alice Pattison, his wife, and Isabelle M. Pattison against John R. Pattison, for the reason that no service of the undertaking was made. The notice of appeal was filed October 11,1913, with proper proof of service indorsed thereon.

Relies on Briney v. Starr · Henness v. Wells · Rodman v. Manning

Appeal Dismissed · Decided 1914-09-22

¶1Opinion

Per Curiam.

¶2Laws of 1913, Chapter 319 (subdivision 2) provides:

“Within 10 days from the giving of notice or service of notice of the appeal, the appellant shall cause to be served on the adverse party or his attorney an undertaking as hereinafter provided, and within said 10 days shall file the original of said undertaking, with proof of service indorsed thereon.with said clerk.”

¶3The question has been decided in this court many times: Briney v. Starr, 6 Or. 207; Henness v. Wells, 16 Or. 266 (19 Pac. 121); Rodman v. Manning, 50 Or. 507 (93 Pac. 366). All hold that this provision, or a simi*395lar one, of the statute is mandatory and must be observed to give the court jurisdiction. Therefore, the motion to dismiss the appeal must be sustained; and it is so ordered.

¶4Appeal Dismissed.