Case Name: LARSEN et al. v. LOOTENS et al.
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1921-01-11
Citations: 102 Or. 579
Docket Number: 
Parties: LARSEN et al. v. LOOTENS et al.
Judges: Burnett, C. J., and Harris and Band, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 102
Pages: 579–603

Head Matter:
Motion to dismiss appeal filed December 6, 1920,
overruled conditionally January 11,
argued on tbe merits November 29, 1921,
affirmed January 17, 1922.
LARSEN et al. v. LOOTENS et al.
(194 Pac. 699; 203 Pac. 621.)
ON MOTION TO DISMISS.
Appeal and Error — Sureties on Undertaking must Justify Before Judge or Clerk of Court in Which Action is Pending.
1. Sureties in an undertaking on appeal under Section 550, Subdivision 3, Or. L., if required to justify, must justify before a judge or clerk of tbe court in which tbe action is pending.
As to whether fraudulent representations by vendor of extent or proportion of land of particular kind included within tbe tract sold is actionable where purchaser inspects tbe land, see notes in 16 Ann. Cas. 502; 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 55.
Appeal and Error — Party Exercising Bight of Appeal must Do so Subject to Burdens That Law Sees Fit to Impose.
2. The right to appeal is not constitutional, but is a privilege given by statute, and the party exercising it must do so subject to such burdens as the law has seen fit to impose.
ON THE MERITS.
Exchange of Property — Right to Rescission of Exchange not Precluded by Plaintiff, Before Trade, Having Visited Premises Received.
3. Plaintiff is not precluded from maintaining suit to rescind an exchange for a ranch on account of defendant’s misrepresentations as to its soil, the amount under cultivation, and what was raised on it, because of having visited the place with defendant, when winter conditions prevailed, preventing a thorough examination, and defendant falsely pointing out cultivated land as part of the ranch, and falsely assuring plaintiff of hay and potatoes in the buildings 'having been raised on the premises.
Exchange of Property — Demand for Rescission on Learning of Misrepresentations not Too Late Because Other Misrepresentation was Known Earlier.
4. Plaintiff was sufficiently prompt in demanding a rescission of an exchange for a ranch, he having done so immediately on discovery of the falsity of defendant’s representations as to the capacity of the land for hay and vegetables, the quality of the soil, and the contiguity of a school, to develop and disclose which took time, though he took no action when, two months before, he discovered that a portion of the seventy-five aeres in cultivation, and represented by defendant to be on the ranch, was on a neighbor’s land.
Appeal and Error — Finding Entitled to Great Weight in Case Involving Contradictory Testimony.
5. In case involving contradictory testimony, the opinion of the trial judge who saw the witnesses, and had opportunity to appraise the value of their testimony at first hand, is entitled to groat weight.
Cancellation of Instruments — Offer Before Suit to Return Property not Necessary Where Made in Complaint.
6. It is not an invariable rule that plaintiff must, before bringing suit for rescission of exchange of property, offer to return the property received by him, if in his complaint he offers to return, and submits himself in that respect to the equity jurisdiction of the court.
Exchange of Property — Right to Rescission of Exchange not Lost by Sale on Notice of Part of Property to Minimize Damages.
7. Right to rescission of an exchang’e of property is not lost by plaintiff, after suit brought, and on notice, selling part of the livestock received, to prevent the same from starving and to minimize damages; defendant being protected by the decree being contingent on payment of the proceeds with interest, thus putting defendant in siatu quo financially.
Cancellation of Instruments — Complaint Need not Allege Damage.
8. Complaint for rescission of exchange of property for fraudulent representations need not allege in terms that plaintiff had been damaged by the exchange.
From Multnomah: George Tazwell, Judge.
In Banc.
This is a motion to dismiss an appeal for want of a sufficient undertaking.
Motion Overruled.
Messrs. Davis S Farrell and Mr. Wilbur Henderson, for the motion.
Mr. Henry 8. WestbrooTc, contra.

Opinion:
The case was tried in Multnomah County and the appellants served and filed an undertaking signed by sureties who lived in Deschutes County and obtained an ex parte order authorizing the justification of the sureties at Bend, Deschutes County, and directing the clerk to transmit the undertaking to the clerk of the Circuit Court of Deschutes County for justification there. The respondents moved the court to set aside' said order and require the sureties to justify in Multnomah County, but this was refused.
Subdivision 3 of Section 550, Or. L., provides:
"The qualifications of sureties in the undertaking on appeal shall be the same as in bail on arrest, and, if excepted to, they shall justify in like manner."
Section 268, Or. L., relating to bail on arrest, provides that the sureties upon an undertaking of bail may justify before a "judge of the Circuit Court or County Court or clerk of the court where the action is pending, at a specified time and place." The construction of this clause and its application to cases of undertaking on appeal are not without difficulties, and possible hardships may result from any construction suggested on the arguments of respective counsel.
Counsel for respondents argue that to hold that a defeated suitor may, after having lost his case, put the successful party to still further trouble and expense by fixing the place for the justification of the sureties in a county remote from where the suit was tried, would work a great injustice and inconvenience by requiring the successful litigant to go to the place designated for the justification in order to cross-examine the sureties as to their qualifications, while the attorney for appellants argues that in the present instance the appellants are comparatively unacquainted in Portland and consequently unable to obtain sureties there, although they are well acquainted at Bend, where they formerly resided, and are consequently able to find friends there to go upon their undertaking. After a careful examination of the statute we are of the opinion that its intent is to require the justification before a judge or clerk of the court in which the action is pending. Such has been the holding in California upon a similar statute: Roush v. Van Hagen, 18 Cal. 668.
The right to appeal is not constitutional, but is a privilege given by. statute, and the party exercising it must do so subject to such burdens as the law has seen fit to impose. As this precise question has not been raised in this court in any case preceding this, we are disposed to adopt a conservative course in order to avoid the hardship which might result from a dismissal of the appeal. The appellants will be permitted to file here a new undertaking properly justified before a judge of the Circuit Court of Mult nomah County or the clerk of said court within thirty days after the rendition of this opinion. In default of such undertaking the appeal will be dismissed. Motion Overruled.