Case Name: CARTER v. SIMPSON ESTATE CO.
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1920-12-14
Citations: 103 Or. 383
Docket Number: 
Parties: CARTER v. SIMPSON ESTATE CO.
Judges: McBride, Harris and Band, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 103
Pages: 383–392

Head Matter:
Motion to dismiss and affirm filed November 18,
conditionally overruled December 14, 1920,
argued on the merits December 2, 1921,
affirmed January 17,
objections to cost bill overruled March 21, 1922.
CARTER v. SIMPSON ESTATE CO.
(193 Pac. 913; 203 Pac. 580.)
ON MOTION TO DISMISS.
Appeal and Error — Time for Filing Abstract Under Stipulation.
1. Where by stipulation of parties appellant was granted by the Supreme Court additional time to “prepare and serve” on respondent an abstract, such time to extend to and include November 6th, nothing being said in the order as to the time of filing in the Supreme Court, a fair construction of Supreme Court rule 6 (89 Or. 712 [173 Pac. viii]) would leave the appellant five days after November 6th within which to file the abstract.
Appeal and Error. — Omission of Index in Abstract Excused, Where Overlooked by Attorney.
2. Where appeUant omitted index from abstract by reason of the local printer having little experience in preparing and printing abstracts, appellant’s attorney overlooking the omission by reason of his anxiety to get it served in time, and leave was asked to file the printed index, the court felt justified in excusing the omission, and permitted the index to be filed, on motion by respondent to dismiss the appeal.
Appeal and Error — Rule as to Printing a Reference to Page Where Exhibits Would be Found Held Substantially Complied With.
3. Where no exhibits were printed in the abstract, and the necessity lor .printing a reference to the page where they may be found in the transcript was not apparent, rule 5 of the Supreme Court (89 Or. 711 [173 Pac. viii]) was substantially complied with where, following page 1 of the transcript of testimony, there was a complete index to aU of the exhibits.
Appeal and Error — Where Abstract Is Imperfect or Unfair, Respondent may File Additional Abstract.
4. The remedy for imperfection or unfairness in the appellant’s abstract is found in rule 7 of the Supreme Court .(89 Or. 712 [173 Pac. viii]) which provides that respondent may, within ten days after receiving a copy, deliver to appellant’s counsel and • to the clerk of the court such further or additional abstract .as he shall deem necessary to a full understanding of the questions involved.
Appeal and Error — Objection That Abstract Does not Sufficiently Set Forth Errors Covered by Court Rule.
5. An objection that appellant’s abstract does not sufficiently set forth the errors relied on in the appeal is covered by Supreme Court rule 12 (89 Or. 717 [173 Pac. x]), whieh provides that the Supreme Court will not examine or consider errors not assigned in the abstract, except those going to the jurisdiction of the court or the sufficiency of the action.
ON THE MERITS.
Mortgages — Writing as to Manner of Obviating Absolute Deed Supersedes Oral Understanding.
6. Although it is permissible to establish by parol that a deed absolute on its face was intended as a ■ mortgage, yet, when the parties themselves put into writing the means by whieh the effect of the deed may be obviated, and the title returned to the grantor therein, those writings supersede any oral understanding, unless the validity of those writings is attacked for fraud or mistake, under Section 713, Or. L.
Mortgages — Evidence Held to Show Deed was Given in Satisfaction of Mortgage.
7. In action to have deed absolute on its faee declared a mortgage, evidence held to show that the deed was given in cancellation of the mortgage indebtedness, and that such debt was discharged.
6. On parol evidence that a written instrument whieh on its face imports a complete transfer of a legal or equitable estate or interest in property was intended to operate as a mortgage or pledge, see comprehensive note in L. R. A. 1916B, 18.
From Coos: John S. Coke, Judge.
In Banc.
This is a motion to dismiss an appeal, upon the grounds: (1) that the abstract was not filed within the time prescribed by the rules of this court or by any order of this court; (2) that such abstract does not contain an index as required by rule 11 of this court; (3) that there is not appended to the abstract of each paper reference to the page of the transcript on which such paper will be found; and (4) that the abstract does not concisely assign the errors relied upon for reversal.
Overruled Conditionally.
Mr. A. H. Derbyshire and Mr. A. 8. Hammond, for the motion.
Mr. George P. Topping and Mr. A. G. Thompson, contra.

Opinion:
McBBIDE, C. J.
The first ground assigned does not appear to be well taken. The transcript on appeal was filed here on October 4, 1920, and according to rule 6 of this court (89 Or. 712 [173 Pac. 8]), it became the duty of the appellant within twenty days thereafter to prepare and serve his printed abstract, arid within five days after such service to file in this court sixteen copies' thereof, accompanied by proof of service. By stipulation of the parties, the appellant was granted by this court additional time to "prepare and serve" on respondent an abstract, such time to extend to and include November 6, 1920. Nothing is said in the order as to the time of filing here, and a fair construction of the rule would leave appellant five days after November 6th within which to file the required number of copies of the abstract with the clerk of this court. Such copies were filed here on November 9, 1920, and were within time.
Another objection is that there is no index to the abstract, and this is admitted. But in extenuation of this omission appellant sets forth in an affidavit by his attorney the following:
"In reference to an index to said abstract, will say that the printer of the local paper at Myrtle Point, Oregon, has had little experience in preparing and printing abstracts; that I gave him for a copy an abstract in another case, which was indexed according to rules of the Supreme Court, but in his rush at the last hour he neglected to prepare and insert in said abstract an index, and in my anxiety to get the same served on time I overlooked the index, having in mind at the time the rule (rule 10 [173 Pac. 9]) with reference to a brief, which does not require an index if the printed matter does not cover twenty pages; that appellant is ready and willing to have printed, and will insert in the abstracts served and filed, an index thereto.".
As this omission has not in any way delayed the case, and appellant has asked leave to file such printed index, we feel justified in excusing the omission, and he will be permitted to file it.
No exhibits are printed in the abstract, and the necessity for printing a reference to the page where they may be found in the transcript is not apparent. Following page 1 of the transcript of testimony is a complete index to all of the exhibits. We think that the requirements of rule 5 (89 Or. 711 [173 Pac. 8]) have thus been substantially complied with.
The remedy for imperfection or unfairness in the appellant's abstract is found in rule 7 (89 Or. 712 [173 Pac. 8]), which provides in substance that if respondent deems such abstract imperfect or unfair, he may within ten days after receiving a copy thereof deliver to appellant's counsel and to the clerk of this court sixteen copies of such further or additional abstract as he shall deem necessary to a full understanding of the questions involved in the appeal.
The objection that the abstract does not sufficiently set forth-the errors relied upon in the appeal is covered by rule 12 (89 Or. 717 [173 Pac. 10]), which provides that this court will not examine or consider errors not assigned in the abstract, except those going to the jurisdiction of the court or the sufficiency of the action.
The motion to dismiss will be overruled, upon the condition that appellant shall within ten days from the date of this opinion serve upon defendant's attorneys a copy of the index tendered in the affidavit and motion for leave so to file, and shall within such time file with the clerk of this court the requisite number of such copies. Failure to comply with this condition will result in a dismissal of the appeal.
Overruled Conditionally.