explaining that “a party, through failure to make timely protest, may waive his objection to the lack of jurisdiction of a court of equity over the subject matter if the court’s jurisdiction is defective in some degree but not wholly lacking”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that “a party, through failure to make timely protest, may waive his objection to the lack of jurisdiction of a court of equity over the subject matter if the court’s jurisdiction is defective in some degree but not wholly lacking”
- concurring and dissenting opinions on rehearing, representing the views of five members of the court on this question
- in the context of a court’s exercise of “equitable jurisdiction,” explaining that “ ‘a dis- tinction must be made between an entire lack of matter of equitable cognizance and cases within the field of equitable jurisdiction, in which an element essential to complete juris- diction is lacking’ ” (quoting Hudson v. Goldberg, 123 Or 339, 342 , 262 P 223 (1927) (further citation omitted))
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Memmott v. State Industrial Accident Commission, 235 Or. 360 (1963)
The Thompson case is distinguishable, however, for there the injured workman was employed a substantial part of his time as a logger, and the remainder of his time as a farm hand.
The opinion
SLOAN, J.,
dissenting.
There was evidence in this case to sustain the trial court’s finding that Workmen’s Compensation Act payments were not “required.” The trial court’s finding should he affirmed.