Case Name: HANNA v. ALLUVIAL FARM CO.
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1915-12-28
Citations: 79 Or. 557
Docket Number: 
Parties: HANNA v. ALLUVIAL FARM CO.
Judges: Mr. Justice Eakin not sitting.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 79
Pages: 557–563

Head Matter:
Argued December 8,
affirmed December 28, 1915.
Rehearing allowed February 1, argued on rehearing February 23, approved on rehearing March 21, 1916.
HANNA v. ALLUVIAL FARM CO.
(152 Pac. 103; 156 Pac. 265.)
Appeal and Error — When Affirmed Regardless of Technical and Immaterial Errors.
1. Article VII, Section 3, of the Constitution provides that where on appeal the record contains all the testimony, the instructions of the court to the jury, and all other matters material to the decision as made in the lower court, from a consideration of all which the appellate court is of the opinion that the judgment rendered by the court below is such as should have been rendered, the ease on appeal will be affirmed, notwithstanding the errors assigned by appellant which do not affect the justness of the judgment.
Judgment — Conclusiveness.
2. When a question has been fully and finally litigated and decided between two parties by a court having jurisdiction of them and the subject matter involved, the judgment is the end of the law, and finally concludes both parties.
[As to necessity that judgment remove all uncertainty in order to be res judicata, see note in 44 Am. St. Rep. 563.]
Appeal and Error — Review—Consideration or “Bill of Exceptions.”
3. In view of Section 169, L. O. L., the Supreme Court can examine the bill of exceptions to determine the true character of the judgment below, since, a “bill of exceptions” is an authoritative declaration of the trial court concerning matters that would not properly appear in the mere journal entry of the judgment; its object being to bring into the record matter that would not otherwise appear in order to lay the foundation for proceedings in error and for the information of the appellate court.
Judgment — Conclusiveness—Nonsuit—Statute.
4. Under section 184, L, O. L.,' providing that when a judgment of nonsuit is given the action is dismissed, but such judgment shall not bar another action for the same cause, where plaintiff made offers of testimony, many of which were overruled, and rested, and without also resting, defendant’s counsel moved “for findings of the court for judgment for the defendant and that it recover of the plaintiff its costs and disbursements,” the judgment for defendant entered upon such motion was not conclusive in another suit on the same cause of action, since the motion of defendant amounted merely to a demurrer to evidence and resulted only in a judgment of nonsuit.
Appeal and Error — Bill of Exceptions — Admission of Offer of Testimony.
5. Where defendant’s bill of exceptions states that “plaintiff offered testimony tending to prove all the allegations contained in the complaint,” defendant cannot assign error to the insufficiency of plaintiff’s evidence to prove the allegations.
From Polk: Webster Holmes, Judge.
Two cases were tried together, hut not consolidated. One is by J. L. Hanna against the Alluvial Farm Company, a corporation, and the other is by the Alluvial Farm Company, ag’ainst J. L. Hanna. From a judgment rendered in favor of plaintiff in the first action, defendant appeals.
Aeeirmed.
For appellant there was a brief over the name of Messrs. Sheppard & Brock, with an oral argument by Mr. C. A. Sheppard.
For respondent there was a brief over the names of Messrs. Carson & Brown and Mr. John D. Turner, with an oral argument by Mr. John A. Carson.
Department 1.

Opinion:
Opinion
Per Curiam. .
Attached to the bill of exceptions in this case are the whole testimony, the instructions of the court to the jury, and all other matters material to the decision as made in the court below, from a consideration of all which we are of the opinion that the judgment appealed from is such as should have been rendered in the case.
It is consequently affirmed under the authority of Section 3 of Article VII of the state Constitution, notwithstanding the assignments of error urged by the defendant. • Aeeirmed.