Opinion

Kerschner v. Smith

  • 121 Or. 469
  • 256 P. 195
  • 236 P. 272
  • 1927 Ore. LEXIS 106
Court
Oregon Supreme Court
Filed
Apr 14, 1927
Status
Published
Author
McBEIDE
On the bench
McBeide, Brown, Burnett, Bean, Belt
Cited by
9 cases
Authority
More cited than 86.8%

The opinion

McBEIDE, C. J.

This is a motion to dismiss'an appeal for the reason that the undertaking was not filed within ten days from the filing of the notic 3 of appeal.

The defendant in this case served his notice of appeal on the seventh day of February, 1925, and on the nineteenth day of February, 1925, he filed his undertaking, which was duly served on the plaintiff at that date. The plaintiff moves now to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the undertaking was not served within ten days from the filing of the notice of appeal. But, as it appears that the undertaking was served on the plaintiff’s attorney on the nineteenth day of February, 1925, the plaintiff is within Eule No. 23 of this court, which requires all motions to be filed within ten days after a party or his attorney shall have obtained knowledge of

*471

the failure of the adverse party in any particular. The undertaking was, in fact, several days late, but, as plaintiff had knowledge of it on the nineteenth day of February, and did not file his motion to dismiss until March 26th, his motion comes too late and is therefore overruled. Motion Overruled.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.