Case Name: CASTO v. MURRAY
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1905-07-31
Citations: 47 Or. 57
Docket Number: 
Parties: CASTO v. MURRAY.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 47
Pages: 57–68

Head Matter:
Argued 5 July,
decided 31 July, 1905,
rehearing denied.
CASTO v. MURRAY.
81 Pac. 388, 883.
Appeal —Oral Instructions as Part of Record of Triad Court-Bill of Exceptions — Diminution of Record.
1. Oral instructions to the jury are not a part of the record of the trial court, under B. & C. Comp. § 132, subd. 6, requiring the charge io the jury to be reduced to writing and filed with the clerk at the request of either party, so that unless such instructions are written out afterward and made a part of the bill of exceptions, they cannot reach the supreme court.
Supplying- Diminished Transcript — Oral Instructions.
2. A diminished transcript cannot be supplied by matter not part of the records of the trial court, as, for example, by a copy of the oral instructions taken stenographically and extended, such writing not being part of the statutory record of the trial.
Replevin —Rights of Possessor.
3. Bare possession of personal property entitles the possessor to hold it against mere trespassers, even though the title may be in another.
Master and Servant — Effect of Death.
4. The relation of master and servant is ended by the death of the employer, unless there is a special agreement otherwise.
Pleading — Matters of Inducement Are Immaterial.
5. Matters of inducement and explanation, not constituting a part of the cause of action, are immaterial and may be stricken out on motion.
Replevin —Alleging Right of Possession.
6. In replevin it must appear by the complaint that plaintiff1 was entitled to the possession of the property named at the time the action was commenced.
Idem — Allegations Without Conclusions.
7. A complaint in claim and delivery, basing plaintiff’s right of possession on a contract covering a definite period of time, before the expiration of which the action was commenced, and showing that at a date prior to the expiration of that period defendants unlawfully took possession of the property, discloses a right to the immediate possession of the property in plaintiff, without an express averment to that effect, and the striking out of such an averment is not error.
Administrators —Appointment—Effect —Title by Relation.
8. Under B. & C. Comp. \ 1147, vesting title to the possession and control of property of a decedent in his personal representative until the completion of the administration, and section 5578, entitling the widow of an intestate who leaves no issue to the residue of his personal property after the payment of the debts and expenses of administration, a widow of an intestate decedent, who takes possession of personal property belonging to her deceased husband’s estate prior to the appointment of an administrator, acquires by a subsequent appointment as administratrix a title to such personal property which relates back to her husband’s death, and may be pleaded as a defense to an action of replevin brought for such property by the person from whom she took the same, provided the taking was lawful; but the title so acquired will not relate back, so as to validate the taking, if the same was originally unlawful and in violation of the rights of the person in possession thereof.
From Marion: George H. BurNett, Judge.
This is a replevin action by Samuel Casto against Emma Murray and others, resulting in a judgment for defendants. After the transcript had been filed the respondents moved for permission to supplement the record, which was overruled, and upon final consideration the judgment was affirmed.
MotioN Overruled : Affirmed.
Mr. John A. Carson and Mr. Anderson M. Cannon for the motion.
Mr. Woodson T. Slater, contra.

Opinion:
Decided 20 March, 1905.
On Motion to Supplement the Record.
Per Curiam.
This is a motion by respondents suggesting a dimunition of the record, and to have this court supplement the same with the instructions to the jury of the trial court. The instructions have not been sent up, and are therefore not a part of the record here. The declared purpose of thus having the record completed is to have it shown that, although the trial court overruled a demurrer to the first separate answer to the amended complaint, it in effect disregarded such answer by its instructions to the jury, and thereby cured the error, if any, in its ruling upon the demurrer; it being now insisted by the appellant that the trial court erred in that particular. The instructions were given orally and taken down in shorthand, but the notes were not extended and filed with the clerk until later, when they were certified to by the circuit judge as being full and correct, and this coprt is now asked to annex them to the record here. There is a bill of exceptions accompanying the record, but whether it is desired to have the instructions added to it, or simply to have the record supplemented thereby, is not entirely clear. But in either view, we are of the opinion that the motion ought not to be allowed. If either party require it, the charge of the court must be given in writing, and when so given it must also be filed with the clerk (B. & C. Comp. § 132, subd. 6), and, being so filed, it becomes a part of the record in the case. Oral instructions apparently were not designed to be thus incorporated in the record. It is the office of the bill of exceptions to embody a statement of the events and holdings of the court during the progress of the trial and in the submission of the cause to the jury, and it is only by this method that a record of the trial is :nade up. All matters not otherwise required by law to be made a part of the files and record in the case are required thus to be certified, or else the appellate court cannot take cognizance of them: Farrell v. Oregon Gold Co., 31 Or. 463, 473(49 Pac. 876), and cases cited.
Hence it may r.eadily be seen that the certified oral instructions with which it is sought to have the record now supplemented are not pertinent for that purpose, because not a part of the record of the trial court; and much less are they a part of the bill of exceptions, because not incorporated therein. It is the province of the trial court, in a proper case, to correct, and if necessary supplement, the bill of exceptions; and, when so corrected and supplemented, this court will require that it be sent up so that the cause may be fully and fairly presented for determination: State ex rel. v. Estes, 34 Or. 196, 204 (52 Pac. 571); Bloch v. Sammons, 37 Or. 600 (55 Pac. 438, 62 Pac. 290); Nosler v. Coos Bay Nav. Co., 40 Or. 305, 308 (63 Pac. 1050). But, unless the matter is in some regular course incorporated in or made part of the record in the case, it is not entitled to be filed or considered here. The motion is therefore denied. MotioN Overruled.
Statement by Mr. Justice Moore.
This is an action by Samuel Casto against Emma Murray, T. E. Strong and C. D. Crookham, to recover the possession of a horse. The complaint, so far as deemed material, is as follows:
"That on or about the 15th day of July, 1903, William Murray was the owner and in possession of one chestnut colored stallion, named Diablo, [and keeping him in the stud at the fair ground near Salem, in Marion County, Oregon; and at said date said Murray employed said plaintiff to care for and attend said stallion, and said plaintiff entered into the possession of said stallion, and thereafter, under said employment, gave him all necessary care and attention] until the death of the said William Murray, which occurred on or about the 21st day of August, 1903, at the City of Salem, Oregon; [and that thereafter said plaintiff continued in the possession of said stallion, and cared for him, and gave him all necessary attention in the stud i, until on or about the 26th day of August, 1903, when said defendant Emma Murray, widow of said William Murray, then deceased, and claiming to be, and who was, the sole heir at law of said decedent, and claiming to be, and who was, the sole owner of said stallion, made and entered into an agreement with said plaintiff, by which the said plaintiff was to keep and care for said stallion in the stud for the season ending the 15th of August, 1904, upon the following terms and conditions, to wit."
The terms of the contract are then set out and it is alleged that plaintiff duly kept them. It is also alleged :
"[That on and prior to the 26th day of January, 1904, and for a long time prior thereto, the said plaintiff was, ever since has been, and now is, the special owner of, and entitled to the immediate possession of, said stallion, named Diablo, under and pursuant to the terms and conditions of said contract made and entered into by and between said plaintiff and said defendant Emma Murray, as hereinbefore alleged ]."