Case Name: FLEMING v. GERLINGER MOTOR CAR CO.
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1916-09-19
Citations: 86 Or. 195
Docket Number: 
Parties: FLEMING v. GERLINGER MOTOR CAR CO.
Judges: Mr. Chief Justice McBride, Mr. Justice Burnett and Mr. Justice Harris, concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 86
Pages: 195–205

Head Matter:
Motion, to dismiss appeal denied September 19, 1916,
argued on tie merits October 16,
affirmed November 6, 1917.
FLEMING v. GERLINGER MOTOR CAR CO.
(159 Pac. 1153; 168 Pac. 289.)
Appeal and Error — Bond — Justification of Sureties — Time to File Transcript.
1. Section 550, subd. 2, L. O. L., allows respondent five days in which to exeept to the sureties on appeal. Subdivision 4 provides that appeal shall be deemed perfected on expiration of time allowed to except to the sureties, or from their justification. Section 554 provides that on perfection of appeal, appellant shall, within 30 days thereafter, file a transcript. Held, that where by agreement plaintiff deposited a certain sum in ease the judgment was affirmed, whereupon exceptions to the sureties were waived, it constituted a justification, and an order, extending time to file transcript, made within 30 days from the time exceptions to the sureties were overruled, was properly granted.
ON THE MERITS.
Evidence — Judicial Notice — Matter of Common Knowledge — Economy in Gasoline Consumption..
2. It is a matter of common knowledge that economy in the consumption of gasoline in driving motor ears is largely influenced by the ability and experience of the chauffeur, the character of the road traveled, the number of stops, and the length of times wherein the engine is permitted to run without progression.
[As to facts of which courts will take judicial notice, see note in 124 Am. St. Rep. 20.]
Sales — Misrepresentation of Existing Matter — “Actionable Fraud.”
3. The seller of a jitney bus was not guilty of actionable fraud by promising the buyer that if his venture should fail to be a financial success, it would procure contracts from individuals and firms for the profitable use of the ear, and by failing to fulfill such agreement, since the general rule is that to constitute actionable fraud there must be a false assertion, in regard to some existing matter, whereby a party is induced to part with his money or property.
Sales — Misrepresentation on Sale of Automobile — Buyer’s Election to Affirm.
4. “Where the buyer of a jitney bus discovered the falsity of all of the seller’s alleged representations within the first, two weeks of his use of the ear, but took no action in regard to the matter until after the car’s attachment, 37 days after the sdle, in an action by the seller’s assignee seeking to recover an overdue installment of the unpaid purchase-money note, under the circumstances the buyer elected to affirm the contract despite any fraud on the seller’s part.
From Multnomah: John P. KaVanaugh, Judge.
Suit by J. 0. Fleming against the Gerlinger Motor Car Company and Seymour H. Bell. Decree dismissing the suit, and plaintiff appealed. On motion to dismiss the appeal.
Motion denied.
Mr. Mcmrice Beits and Mr. Leon W. Behrman, for the motion.
Mr. Cicero M. Idleman, contra.
Eor authorities discussing the question as to whether future promise will constitute fraud, see notes in 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 640; 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 735. Reporter.

Opinion:
Opinion
Per Curiam.
A judgment dismissing this action was rendered February 4, 1916, and on April 4th, following, the plaintiff served and filed a notice of appeal and an undertaking therefor. The defendant's counsel on April 17,1916, excepted to the sufficiency of the sureties on the undertaking, which exceptions were overruled on the 27th of that month. The trial court on May 27, 1916, made an order extending the time to June 3,1916, in which to file a transcript in this court, and the transcript was filed within the time so limited. The defendant's counsel moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that jurisdiction of the attempted review of the judgment had been lost when such order was made. The statute declares that within ten days from the serving of a notice of appeal the appellant is required to serve upon the adverse party and file an undertaking on appeal. The respondent is allowed five days after the service of the undertaking in which to except to the sureties thereon: Section 550, subd. 2, L. O. L.
"From the expiration of the time allowed to except to the sureties in the undertaking, or from the justifica lion thereof if excepted to, the appeal shall be deemed perfected": Section. 550, snbd. 4, L. O. L.
"Upon the appeal being perfected, the appellant shall, within thirty days thereafter, file with the clerk of the appellate court a transcript," etc.: Section 554.
It appears from an affidavit filed herein that by agreement with defendant's counsel the plaintiff deposited with the clerk of the trial court the sum of $100 as costs and disbursements in case the judgment was affirmed on appeal, whereupon the exceptions so interposed were waived. This procedure was equivalent to a justification by the sureties, and the order of the trial court extending the time to file the transcript, was made within 30 days from the time the exceptions were overruled, and while that court had jurisdiction of the cause.
The motion to dismiss the appeal is therefore denied.
Motion Denied.