Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

80 Or. 62

Steed v. Cavanaugh

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided October 13, 1915

Oregon Supreme Court · decided 1915-10-13

<p>Appeal and Error—Appeal Undertaking—Sufficiency.</p> <p>1. An appeal undertaking not providing that appellant would pay all the damages, costs, and disbursements which might be awarded against him on appeal, as required by Section 551, L. O. It., was invalid.</p> <p>Appeal and Error—Undertakings—Amendment.</p> <p>2. Under the express provision of Section 550, subdivision 4, h. O. L., appellant, whose appeal undertaking by oversight omitted an essential provision would be allowed to file a sufficient undertaking.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently March 1921

1 state decisions

Relies on Sutton v. Sutton

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Denied · Decided 1915-10-13

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mb. Justice Eakin

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2The plaintiff moves to dismiss this appeal for the reason that both the notice of appeal and bond are insufficient.

¶31. Passing objections to the notice, although it is extremely doubtful if it is sufficient, the undertaking recites that the appellant and surety will satisfy the judgment if affirmed, but in no wise does it provide that appellant will pay all damages, costs, and disbursements which may be awarded against it on the appeal, as is required in Section 551, L. O. L. It is therefore defective.

¶42. This provision is essential, and its absence renders the undertaking invalid; but, on the authority of Sutton v. Sutton, 78 Or. 9 (150 Pac. 1025), the mistake in the undertaking being clearly an unintentional oversight, within subdivision 4 of Section 550, L. O. L., the appellant will be allowed to file a sufficient undertaking.

¶5The motion is denied. Denied.

¶6This appeal dismissed on stipulation April 4,1916.— Repobteb.

/80/or/62 · .json · Public domain