Case Name: GARNSEY v. COUNTY COURT
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1898-09-14
Citations: 33 Or. 201
Docket Number: 
Parties: GARNSEY v. COUNTY COURT.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 33
Pages: 201–208

Head Matter:
Decided 14 September, 1898.
GARNSEY v. COUNTY COURT.
[54 Pac. 539, 1089]
1. Rules of Court — Piling Briefs. — Appellant, having failed to file abstract or brief because the same questions were Involved in another case pending on appeal, may, on the other case being dismissed, be relieved from failure to file them as required by the rules of court, and the caso he heard on the briefs in the other case and such others as either party may file.
2. Review to Probate Courts.— A county court sitting for the transaction of probate business is an “inferior court” whose proceedings may be examined by a writ of review under Hill’s Ann. Laws, g 585 as amended (Laws 1889, 135): Kirkwood v. Washington County, 32 Or. 568, approved.
3. Remedial Score of Writ. — Under Hill’s Ann. Laws, gg 585, 591, providing that a writ of review shall he allowed in all cases where the inferior court appears to have exorcised its judicial powers erroneously, or to have exceeded its jurisdiction, to the injury of some substantial right, and that the court may affirm, modify, or annul the determination reviewed, the scope of the writ is conflned to those eases where jurisdiction has been exceeded, or judicial functions have been exercised in an illegal manner. The writ is still substantially the common law proceeding: Dayton v. Board of Equalization, 33 Or. 131, approved.
4. Idem. — A writ of review will not lie to revise the action of a probate court in passing on a claim presented against an estate, provided the proceedings are in due form.
From Klamath : W. C. Hale, Judge.
Writ of review by Cecil J. Garnsey against the county court of Klamath County and its judge to review the action of said court in allowing a certain claim against an estate. The circuit court dismissed the writ, whereupon petitioners appealed. The case was heard on a motion to affirm and on the merits.
Affirmed.
For appellants there were briefs over the names of Reddy, Campbell & Metson, and J. W. Ilamaker, with an oral argument by Messrs. Ilamaker and Peter II. D’Arey.
For respondent there was a brief and an argument by Mr. N. B. Knight, urging, among others, this point.
This is the first time in the judicial history of this state where an attempt has been made to revise or review by writ of review a judgment of a county court in the exercise of its jurisdictional powers as a probate court. Why? Because no lawyer who has any respect for his profession would compromise his reputation by displaying such dense ignorance of the constitution and laws of his state. There can be no writ of review in such cases. The only remedy is by an appeal. The allowance of attorney fees, charges and expenses rests in the sound discretion of the probate court and its judgment in those matters will not be disturbed unless it can be shown it was corrupt. Now the attorney says that while Fred. H. Mills was adminis trator and I was his attorney there was no litigation in which the estate was a party. He knows he sued the administrator, Fred. H. Mills, for over $14,000.00 at the November term, 1891, of the Circuit Court for Klamath County. If there had been a trial of that suit he would have paid the costs. I see he recollects my services to the estate in that suit. “ Haeret lateri lethalis arundo.” In his additional brief he talks about ‘ ‘ multifarious litigation.” All lawyers know what a multifarious pleading is in equity, but who ever heard of a multifarious litigation? In his additional brief he calls the order of Judge Moore of July 12, 1895, a brutum fulmen, and in his original brief he calls it a brutem fulmen. Now what on earth he means by that I don’t know. Evidently he is pretending that he knows something about the Latin language. But any tyro in that language would know from the inaptness of the phrases employed that he knew just as much about the Latin language and its appropriate legal and literary uses in the English language as a mule does about music. For the benefit of this attorney let me quote a single line from a great poet:
“A little learning is a dangerous thing.”

Opinion:
On Motion to Affirm.
Mr. Justice Bean
delivered the opinion.
In April, 1897, a motion was filed in this court to affirm the judgment of the court below on the ground that the appellants had "failed to file an abstract or brief within the time required by the rules of the court. As an excuse for not complying with the rule, the appellants filed an affidavit alleging that the same questions presented in this proceeding were involved in the case of Knight v. Hamaker, which had not then been heard, and asked that in consequence thereof the matter be held in abeyance until the final disposition of the other case. Upon this state of facts the motion was submitted, and has been reserved for further consideration until this time. The case of Knight v. Hamaker having now been disposed of without a consideration of the merits, 33 Or. 154 (54 Pac. 277), it is deemed best to deny the motion to affirm in this case, and to direct that the appellants be relieved from filing either an abstract or brief, and that the case be set down for an early hearing on the briefs filed in the Hamaker appeal and such additional briefs as either party may desire to file ; and it is so ordered.
Motion denied.