Case Name: DE LORE v. SMITH
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1913-11-11
Citations: 67 Or. 304
Docket Number: 
Parties: DE LORE v. SMITH.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 67
Pages: 304–309

Head Matter:
Motion to Dismiss Appeal denied May 27, 1913.
Argued October 29,
decided November 11, 1913.
DE LORE v. SMITH.
(132 Pac. 521: 136 Pac. 13.)
Appeal and Error — Notice of Appeal — Time.
1. An oral notice of appeal given at tbe time a motion for a new trial was denied and prior to the time judgment was entered was ineffectual for any purpose, Section 201, L. O. L., providing for entry of judgment, and Section 550 for oral notiee of appeal after sueh entry, and the oral notice did not affect the party’s right thereafter to give a written notice of appeal, etc.
Witnesses — Competency—Source of Knowledge — Eavesdropping.
2. Where a witness called to testify concerning a telephonic conversation between others qualified himself by testifying that he recognized the voice of the speaker, he was not disqualified because he heard the conversation by means of eavesdropping or “cutting in” on the phone.
[As to law of telephone as applied to rules of evidence, see note in 127 Am. St. Rep. 538.]
Trial — Instructions—Request to Charge.
3. In replevin the court charged that a wrongful taking meant a taking without right and lawful authority, and that if Gr. traded the property in dispute, of which he was not the owner, to defendant, defendant’s possession would be wrongful, though he believed that Gr. was the owner, and if he returned the property to Gr., after demand by plaintiff and prior to suit, and plaintiff had no knowledge of the return, such condition would constitute an unlawful detention by defendant, but if it appeared that after demand for return of the property, and prior to the commencement of the action, defendant delivered the property to Gr. and plaintiff had knowledge, such situation would be a defense. Held, that such instruction covered a request to charge that if defendant obtained possession of the property from Gr. by a contract which was subject to plaintiff’s approval, and plaintiff refused to aecept the trade and demanded possession, and defendant refused to deliver, the verdict should be for plaintiff, and any transfer or surrender of the property by defendant to G-. after demand and before the commencement of the action would constitute no defense.
Replevin — Nature of Action — Requisites—Possession.
4. To maintain replevin defendant must have had either actual or constructive possession of the property at the commencement of the action, so that, if judgment was rendered against him, he might deliver it to plaintiff.
From Grant: Dalton Biggs, Judge.
This is an action by M. E. De Lore against Joseph L. Smith. There was a judgment in favor of the defendant and plaintiff appeals. Respondent files motion to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the lower court.
Denied.
Mr. A. D. Leedy, for the motion.
Mr. Errett Hicks and Mr. Otis Patterson, contra.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Moore
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a motion to dismiss an appeal and affirm a judgment. An inspection of the transcript brought up shows that a trial of the action resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of the defendant. Three days thereafter a motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial was denied, whereupon plaintiff's counsel in open court gave an oral notice of appeal and within the time prescribed filed an undertaking therefor. Thereafter the attempted appeal was abandoned ' and a written notice of appeal and an undertaking thereon were served and filed. The transcript. of appeal was left with our clerk within the time prescribed considering the latter notice and undertaking as the initiation of a review of the judgment.
The defendant's counsel maintain that, the appeal having been perfected pursuant to the original oral notice, it cannot be abandoned and a new appeal taken. This contention is without merit, however, for as the oral notice was given at the time the motion for a new trial was denied, and not at the time the judgment was given and entered, the notice was ineffectual for any purpose: Sections 201, 550, L. O. L.; Barde v. Wilson, 54 Or. 68 (102 Pac. 301).
The original attempt to review the judgment being ineffectual, it was proper to abandon the experiment and to begin again by the service of a written notice of appeal and the giving of an undertaking thereon.
It follows that the motion should be denied, and it is so ordered. Denied.