Case ID: or_27/html/0137-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Decided April 15, 1895.
    SHEPPERD v. LATOURELL.
    Practice in Piling Transcript — Notice—Code, $$ 102, 541, Subdivision 3. —An order of the circuit court extending the time for filing in the supreme court the transcript on appeal is entirely void, if made without notice to the adverse party. The procedure in such cases is regulated by section 541, subdivision 3, and not by section 102, Hill’s Code: Whalley v. Gould, 27 Or. 74, approved and followed.
    Appeal from Multnomah.: M. G. Munly, Judge.
    This is a suit by George Shepperd against Joseph and Henry Latourell to set aside a conveyance by Joseph Latourell to his brother Henry of certain property adjacent to the celebrated Latourell Falls, as having been made to prevent the plaintiff from collecting a certain judgment which he had recovered against Joseph Latourell. There was a decree for plaintiff and Henry Latourell appealed. On the first day of the October term, eighteen hundred and ninety-four, the appellant, entirely without the knowledge or consent of respondent, took an order in the Circuit Court of Multnomah County extending the time within which to file the transcript in the appellate court. The appeal having been perfected, respondent moved to dismiss because the order was made without notice to him or to his attorneys.
    Dismissed.
    
      Messrs. George W. Hazen and Robert G. Morrow, in support of the motion,
    cited the following authorities: Hill’s Code, §§ 524, 541; Bush v. Geisey, 16 Or. 267; Kelley v. Pike, 17 Or. 330; Nestueea Wagon Road, Company v. Landingham, 24 Or.- 439.
    
      Mr. John D. Mann, eontra,
    
    relied on section 102, Hill’s Code, as giving the right to enlarge the time for filing the transcript.
   Per Curiam.

The facts in this case are identical with those in Whalley v. Gould, just decided, 27 Or. 74, and it follows from the views there expressed that the appeal must be dismissed and it is so ordered.

Dismissed.-