Case Name: SUTTON v. SUTTON
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1915-10-22
Citations: 78 Or. 9
Docket Number: 
Parties: SUTTON v. SUTTON.
Judges: Mr. Chief Justice Moore, Mr. Justice Benson and Mr. Justice Bean concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 78
Pages: 9–17

Head Matter:
Motion to dismiss appeal filed July 12, conditionally allowed July 27, 1915.
On the merits argued October 19,
modified October 22, 1915.
SUTTON v. SUTTON.
(150 Pac. 1025; 152 Pac. 271.)
Appeal and Error — Undertaking—Sufficiency.
1. Under Section 551, It. O. L., providing that the undertaking of the appellant shall be that appellant will pay all damages, costs and disbursements awarded against him, an undertaking, which limited the surety’s liability to $100 is insufficient.
Appeal and Error — Undertakings—Amendment.
2. Under Section 550, L. O. It., as amended by Laws of 1913, page 617, so as to provide that, when a party in good faith gives due notice of an appeal, and thereafter omits through mistake to do anything, including the filing of an undertaking, the appellate court may permit an amendment, an appellant who in good faith tendered an undertaking which was insufficient should be allowed to amend and furnish the good undertaking.
Equity — Trial—Exclusion of Evidence.
3. Under Section 405, L. O. L., providing, relative to suits in equity that where evidence is offered and excluded, the party offering it shall be entitled to have it taken down in like manner as the testimony admitted, and that he shall be required to pay for taking it, unless the court on appeal holds it competent, where the court refused to hear evidence as to certain matters, but, when counsel stated that tSey had two witnesses who would not take over five minutes apiece, directed them to be called, and the party offering the testimony did not request permission to take any testimony over the ruling of the court, or offer to pay for the recording of such testimony, there was mo error.
[As to mode of preserving for review oral evidence in equity ease, see note in Ann. Cas. 1913A, 283.]
Divorce — Decree—Conformity to Pleadings and Proof.-
4. In a suit for divorce the ownership of a photograph of a deceased child of the parties was nof made an issue by the pleadings or mentioned in the evidence, but just prior to the close of the trial the husband’s attorney stated that the wife had two identical large photographs, one of which was the husband’s property, and asked that the decree require her to turn one of them over to the husband. The wife’s attorney admitted that the wife had possession of such photographs, and stated that he would advise her to turn one of them over to the husband, and that he did not deem it necessary to insert a provision in the decree. On the settlement of the findings and conclusions the wife’s attorney stated that the wife refused to turn over either of the photographs to the husband. Held, that the court was without authority to provide in the decree that the wife should deliver one of such photographs to the husband, as, assuming that her attorney had a right to bind her by an admission, he made no admission as to the husband’s ownership, and, moreover, ample notice of the wife’s position was given before the formal decision and decree were entered.
Divorce — Alimony—Agreements of Parties — Effect.
5. In a divorce suit the husband, pursuant to an agreement, stipulated to transfer his personal property and convey his real estate to a trustee, who was empowered to sell it according to his oWn judgment, pay a mortgage thereon, satisfy certain debts of the husband, and deliver the balance, if any, to the wife. The mortgage was foreclosed, so that the trustee was practically shorn of his power, and the wife derived no benefit from the transfer to the trustee. Held, that she was not barred by the agreement from claiming alimony.
[As to power of court to modify decree for alimony based on agreements of parties, see note in Ann. Cas. 19120, áá6.]
From Multnomah.: Calvin TJ. Gantenbein, Judge.
This is a suit by Rosa B. Sutton against James N. Sutton for divorce, in which defendant filed a cross-complaint. From a decree in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals! Respondent moves to dismiss appeal.
Conditionally Allowed.
Mr. Frederick H. Brake, for the motion.
' Mr. E. E. Collier, contra.

Opinion:
In Banc.
Mr. Justice McBeide
delivered the opinion of the court.
The plaintiff brought a suit against defendant for divorce, who answered with a cross-complaint, asking that he be decreed a divorce from plaintiff. Upon the trial there was a decree in favor of defendant, from which plaintiff appeals. The undertaking given by plaintiff complied in form and substance with the statute, except that by a clerical error the undertaking provided that:
"Appellant will pay all damages, costs, and disbursements which may be awarded against the defendant on the appeal."
Defendant's counsel filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on account of the insufficiency of the undertaking, but subsequently consented that plaintiff might file a new undertaking, and 'one was filed conditioned that plaintiff would pay all damages, costs and disbursements which might be adjudged against her on the appeal, "not to exceed $100. ' Defendant's counsel moved to dismiss this appeal on account of the limitation as to the amount of the penalty. Plaintiff presents a cross-motion for leave to file a new undertaking, and presents an undertaking complete in every respect, except that the affidavit omits these words required by statute: ' ' That I am not a counselor or attorney at law, clerk of any court, or any other officer of any court' ' — which renders it insufficient. Section 551, L. O. L., provides:
"The undertaking of the appellant shall be given to the effect that the appellant will pay all damages, costs, and disbursements which may be-awarded against him on the appeal. ' '
The undertaking, having specifically limited the liability of the surety to $100, was therefore insufficient : State v. McKinmore, 8 Or. 207; Sanborn v. Fitzpatrick, 51 Or. 459 (91 Pac. 540). Section 550, L. O. L., as amended by Chapter 319, G-eneral Laws of 1913, provides:
"When a party in good faith gives due notice as hereinabove provided of an appeal from a judgment, order or decree, and thereafter omits, through mistake, to do any other act (including the filing of an undertaking as provided, in this section) necessary to perfect the appeal or to stay proceedings, the court or judge thereof, or the appellate court, may permit an amendment or performance of such act on such terms as may be just."
The mistake in the undertaking was unintentional, and, the case being here with the briefs filed and ready to be set for hearing, it ,ymuld be an injustice to dismiss the appeal on account of a defect in the undertaking, which we believe the plaintiff will readily correct by presenting an undertaking complying completely with the statute. We will give her one more opportunity to do this, and an order will be entered allowing plaintiff 10 days in which to file a properly verified undertaking, in default of which the appeal will be dismissed.
Conditionally Allowed.