Oregon Republican. [volume] (Dallas, Or.) 1870-1872, 1870-10-01
Supreme Court Proceedings.


dale Woolen Mills, respondents, appeal
from Marion county. Motion to dismiss
appeal argued aud submitted, and the
case argued on the merits and submits
ted.
Anderson respondent, VS. Bolter, ap-
pellant appeal from Polk county, ar.
gued and submitted.
Lougworth, ct al, respondent, VS. Ad.
ans, appellant; appeal from Marion
county. Motion to dismiss the appeal
argued aud Submitted.
TUESDAY, Sept. Goth.
The motion to dismiss the appeal in
the case of Longsworh VS. Adams, ct al
was overruled, and the case was argued
on the merits and submitted.
Court adjourned to Wednesday morn
ing at 8 o'clock.
WEDNESDAY, Sept, 21st.
Judge Upton announced the decision of
the Court in the case of Fulton, appell-
ant, VS. Administrator of the estate OF
Huntington. respondent.
When the complaint alleges that the
defendant contracted to pay; and the
proof is, that the contract was by the
defendant and other, the evidence Is fa
tal.@ Judgment affirmed. Bonham and
Lawson for appellant; Williams aud
Willis for respondent.
fhayer, J., announced The decision of
the Court inJthc case Of Mcdonald, ap-
pellant, VS.. Evans, respondent appeal
from Doglas.
When the plaintiff RECEIVERS in part
and obtains costs, the defendant cannot
be entitled to costs judgment reversed.
Watson for appellant, w. Il. Willis
and Kelsay for repondent.
The Wasco county contested cases
were taken up, and the argument oon-
tinued, pending which the Court ad,
journcd to Thursday morning at nine
o'clock.
MONDAY, Sept 9th, 1870.
O'Riley aud wife, vs. Wilson, action
for injury received by Mrs O'Rilcy from
the breaking down of the seats at de
fendant's circus negligence in construct
ing the seats. Answer sets up accord
and satisfaction. The reply undertakes
to deny the payment of. SIS and the
surgeons bill, but does not. it is claimed
deny such accord and satisfaction in the
proper mancr. The verdict of the jur,
it is held, cures all defects, except oI
jurisdiction aud suficency of the COM
plant. Our statute does not require
the peculiar technical pleading that ha.
formerly obtained. We think the roply
was sufficient denial, and judgment
should not have been denied. Cause
reversed and remanded. Huleat for ap
pellant, McCowen for respondent.
Briney, VS. Starr; notice of appeal
was fled July I'd, 1870, but il had NJ
endorsement Of service thereoR On
the Sd day Sept, 81 days after such fiji
ing, Stars attorney made aud filed Of
fidayit Of service and attached Ii to thai
notice held that such act could in no
event be done without direction of the
court below. In this case no such
leave had been obtained, nor was any
proof of service it the court below a
the expiration of 80 days, within which
an appeal must be taken. The statute
requires that when the notice of appea
is filed, it must have the proof of service
indorsed thereon. Appeal dismissed.
Logan and Thayer for appellant, Wilson
and Moreland for respondents.
Watts vs. Hoyt, service of notice of ap
peal. When party resides in th'
county where action is pending servic
Of notice must be made upon his attor
ncy, if there be. one in that county. Il
this case, the action was tried in Col
umbia county, respondent lived in tha
county, and notice of appeal was serves
upon his attorny in Multnomah county
Held to be improper and cause dismis
sed. See Indy Wallis, decided at tn
1868 term Of the Supreme Court.
In the comments upon an editoria
appearing in the Mercury, in our las
issue. the word used as applicable t