Title: Radmacher v. Archuleta

State: oregon

Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court

Document:

591 P.2d 744 (1979)
285 Or. 433
A.J. RADMACHER, Respondent,
v.
Paul J. ARCHULETA and Estelle Archuleta, Husband and Wife, Appellants.
No. 17-816; SC No. 25561.

Supreme Court of Oregon, Department 1.
Argued and Submitted December 7, 1978.
Decided March 8, 1979.
Steven T. Campbell of Campbell & Moberg, Seaside, argued the cause and filed a brief for appellants.
Michael J. Gentry of Tooze, Kerr, Peterson, Marshall & Shenker, Portland, argued the cause for respondent.
Before DENECKE, C.J., and HOLMAN, HOWELL and LENT, JJ.
HOLMAN, Justice.
This was a suit in equity brought to establish an easement across defendants' land and to require defendants to remove a fence. Plaintiff was awarded a decree and defendants appealed. This court raised the issue at the time of argument whether or not the notice of appeal had been timely filed and, thus, whether the court had jurisdiction. Counsel was subsequently requested to file memoranda on the subject. If the court is without jurisdiction to hear the appeal, it is its duty to dismiss the appeal upon its own motion. Industrial Leasing v. Van Dyke, 285 Or. 375, 377, 591 P.2d 352 (1979); Martin v. City of Ashland et al., 233 Or. 512, 514, 378 P.2d 711 (1963).
The decree of the trial court was filed on September 21, 1977. On October 3, 1977, defendants filed a motion entitled, "Motion in Arrest of Judgment and in the Alternative for a New Trial," which contained the following language:
Thereafter, on October 27, 1977, the trial court denied the motion. On November 25, *745 1977, defendants filed their notice of appeal.
ORS 19.026 specifies the time within which an appeal must be filed. It provides:
Although the word "judgment" is used in ORS 19.026, in ORS 19.005 "judgment" as so used is defined as any appealable order, including decrees.[1]
Assuming defendants' motion is sufficient to permit any relief that a trial judge might allow under the sections pursuant to which defendants' motion was made, the issue presented by the above set of facts is whether ORS 18.140 and 17.615 have any application to suits in equity as distinguished from actions at law. ORS 18.140 has to do with the entry of judgments notwithstanding the verdict and ORS 17.615, with the granting of new trials. If either or both have application to suits in equity, under ORS 19.026(2) plaintiff's motion would preserve his right to appeal until 30 days after the motion is determined. ORS 18.140 provides, in part:
A verdict is a decision or finding made by a jury. Black's Law Dictionary 1730 (4th ed. 1951). This definition may, of course, be varied by statute and has been varied in Oregon to a limited extent. ORS 17.435 provides that in an action at law the findings of the court on the facts shall be deemed a "verdict." ORS 18.140 uses the word "judgment" and does not include "decree." Also, other parts of the statute[2] demonstrate that the legislature contemplated that a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict should apply only to actions at law and not to suits in equity.
This conclusion is further fortified by ORS 18.020, which provides:
The omission from this statute of ORS 18.140 demonstrates that the latter statute was not intended to have application to suits in equity.
*746 ORS 17.615, which encompasses motions for a new trial, provides:
This statute also refers only to a "judgment" and not to a "decree." The cases are legion which hold that it has application only to law actions and not to suits in equity. Many but not all of the cases so holding are collated in Lane County Escrow v. Smith, Coe, 277 Or. 273, 289, 560 P.2d 608 (1977).
This being an equity case and ORS 18.140 and 17.615 having no application to suits in equity, defendants' motion under either statute failed to extend the time for filing their notice of appeal pursuant to ORS 19.026(2). The notice of appeal, not having been filed within 30 days from the entry of the trial court's decree, was not timely, and this court has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
Defendants' appeal is dismissed.
[1]  ORS 19.005 "* * * As used in this section and in ORS 19.023 to 19.065 and 19.074 to 19.190 unless the context otherwise requires:

"* * * * *.
"(2) `Judgment' means judgment, decree or appealable order, as provided in ORS 19.010.
"* * * * *."
[2]  ORS 18.140. "* * * * *.

"In any case where, in the opinion of the court, a motion for a directed verdict ought to be granted, it may nevertheless, at the request of the adverse party, submit the case to the jury with leave to the moving party to move for judgment in his favor if the verdict is otherwise than as would have been directed.
"* * * * *." (Emphasis added.)