# Caveny v. ASHEIM

> Oregon Supreme Court · September 22, 1954 · 202 Or. 195

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9847540

## Case

- **Full name:** CAVENY v. ASHEIM Et Al. and THE TRAVELLERS INSURANCE COMPANY STATE OF OREGON Ex Rel. ASHEIM Et Al. v. PETERS
- **Court:** Oregon Supreme Court
- **Decided:** September 22, 1954
- **Citations:** 202 Or. 195; 274 P.2d 281; 1954 Ore. LEXIS 337
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Latourette
- **Judges:** Latourette, Warner, Rossman, Lusk, Brand, Perry
- **Cited by:** 33 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9847540

## Opinion text

LATOURETTE, C. J.
(dissenting in part).
I agree with the opinion of the court in all respects save the modification of the decree below by providing for the entry by the Circuit Court of “an award of equitable compensation against the defendants upon application of the plaintiff” or upon the court’s own motion. The plaintiff has not appealed. It is a firmly established rule in this state that the party who has not appealed cannot obtain here a modification favorable to himself of the decree from which the other litigant has appealed. See Crumbley v. Crumbley, 94 Or 617 , 186 P 423 , and cases cited. This is so whether the case be at law or in equity. McCoy v. Crossfield, 54 Or 591, 592 , 104 P 423 . That the court’s decision grants a measure of relief to the plaintiff which she did not receive in the court below seems to me to be plain. I think, therefore, that the modification of the decree violates the rule and goes beyond the power of this court.
I am authorized to say that Mr. Justice Lusk concurs in this opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9847540. Public record. Not legal advice.