Case Name: WALLACE v. PORTLAND RY., L. & P. CO.
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1916-09-19
Citations: 88 Or. 219
Docket Number: 
Parties: WALLACE v. PORTLAND RY., L. & P. CO.
Judges: McBride, C. J., Benson and Harris, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 88
Pages: 219–228

Head Matter:
Motion to dismiss appeal denied September 19, 1916.
Argued on the merits March 12,
reversed and remanded March 26,
rehearing denied April 9, 1918.
WALLACE v. PORTLAND RY., L. & P. CO.
(159 Pac. 974; 170 Pac. 283.)
Appeal and Error — Perfection of - Record — Briefs—Failure to File— Excuses.
1. That indictments have been returned against plaintiff and her witness, for subornation of perjury and perjury, respectively, and that proceedings were had to set aside the judgment on that ground, is sufficient excuse for failure of defendant’s counsel to file briefs on appeal within the time allowed.
Courts — Jurisdiction—Supreme Court.
2. The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is confined to mandamus, quo warranto and habeas corpus under Article VII, Section 2, of the Constitution, and its further jurisdiction is confined by Section 548, L. O. L., to matters of appeal; hence an original motion to set aside a judgment substantially identical with one denied by the Circuit Court but not appealed from, cannot be entertained.
Judgment — Equitable Relief — “Fraud Collateral to Issue.”
3. The production of perjured testimony does not constitute fraud collateral to the issue causing wrongful result warranting the setting aside of a judgment by another and original suit.
Appeal and Error — Review—Discretion—Setting Aside Judgment.
4. While under Section 103, L. O. I/., the court in its discretion may relieve a party from a judgment taken against him through mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect, the action of the trial court will not be reviewed except for plain abuse.
New Trial — Motion for — Time of Making.
5. Where a motion is substantially one for new trial and is filed long after the time provided therefor by statute had elapsed, it is unavailing.
Appeal and Error — Denial of New Trial.
6. No appeal lies from the denial of a motion for new trial.
Judgment — Perjury.
7. The perjury of a witness is not ground for setting aside a judgment on appeal or otherwise.
Damages — Injury Causing Miscarriage.
8. In an action against a carrier for an accident resulting in a miscarriage, the effect on the plaintiff, the mother, alone is to be considered, and no recompense will be allowed for loss of anticipated off* spring.
Appeal and Error — Review—Change of Theory — Evidence.
9. Plaintiff, having urged the testimony of a witness for a specifie purpose before the trial court cannot disclaim that theory on appeal, and urge that the evidence was proper for another purpose.
Trial — Offer of Evidence.
10. In an action by a passenger against a carrier for injuries resulting in a miscarriage, the rejection of testimony that plaintiff and her husband stated prior to the accident that they contemplated an operation on plaintiff without offer to phone, performing of operation and connection with injury was not error.
From Multnomah: Henry E. McGinn, Judge,
Denied September 19, 1916.
Motion to Dismiss.
(159 Pac. 974; 170 Pac. 283.)
Messrs. Asher & Johnstone, for the motion.
Mr. Frank J. Lonergan and Messrs. Griffith, Leiter & Allen, contra.

Opinion:
Opinion
PEE CUEIAM.
The plaintiff, on September 17, 1915, obtained a judgment against the defendant, from which it perfected an appeal within 60 days. Several extensions of time in which to file a brief were granted the defendant's counsel; the last enlargement expiring June 10,1916. Fourteen days thereafter the plaintiff's counsel moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that no brief had then been filed by the appellant. Many affidavits made on behalf of the respective parties have been filed. From these sworn statements it appears that an indictment had been returned against one of the plaintiff's witnesses for perjury alleged to have been committed at the trial of this action and against the plaintiff for subornation of perjury. Based upon these charges the defendant's counsel moved in the lower court to set aside the judgment, which motion was denied. Thereafter the defendant's brief was filed in this court. The subsequent proceed ings against the plaintiff and her witness were so unusual as to excuse the neglect of defendant's counsel in failing to comply with the rules of this court as to the filing of the brief.
For this reason the motion to dismiss the appeal is denied, and the filing of the brief is approved as of this date. Motion Denied.
Reversed and remanded March 26, 1918.