Case Name: HART v. PRATHER
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1911-12-19
Citations: 61 Or. 7
Docket Number: 
Parties: HART v. PRATHER.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 61
Pages: 7–16

Head Matter:
Argued Nov. 3,
decided Dec. 19, 1911,
rehearing denied Feb. 6, 1912.
HART v. PRATHER.
[119 Pac. 489.]
Appeal and Error — -Record—Transcript—Time op Filing.
1. Failure to comply with Section 554, subd. 2, L. O. L., providing that, if the transcript be not filed with the clerk of the appellate court within the time provided, the appeal shall be deemed abandoned, is jurisdictional, and failure to file the transcript within 30 days after the appeal was perfected, as required by subdivision 1, requires a dismissal of the appeal.
Appeal and Error — Record—-Transcript—Payment op Filing Fees —Necessity.
2. Section 1113, L. O. L., relates to the duty of the clerks of the circuit court in certain counties, and provides that no transcript on appeal, etc., or other papers, in probate proceedings, shall be filed until payment of fees. Held, that the clerk of the circuit court could not waive the payment of the prescribed fee as a condition precedent to filing a transcript on appeal in a will contest and consent to appellant paying the fee after the transcript was filed because he did not then know the exact amount of the fee; the transcript not being in law filed until after payment of the fee, though Section 547, L. O. L., provides that delivery of a paper to the clerk shall constitute a filing.
From Malheur: Dalton Biggs, Judge.
Statement by Mr. Justice Burnett.
This is a proceeding by George R. Hart against Martin V. Prather originating in the county court of Malheur County on the contest of a will. When the decision was rendered there, oral notice of appeal was given by the defendant, and the clerk.was directed to prepare a transcript. Both parties concede that the 30 days after the perfection of the appeal expired on July 21, 1911, by which time the transcript should have been filed in the circuit court. On the 13th or 14th of July the appellant’s attorneys called at the county clerk’s office, and were shown the transcript by that officer. Deeming his certificate informal, they dictated another one to his stenographer, and requested the clerk to have it extended, sign, and append it to the transcript, which, when it should be thus authenticated, they directed him to file as of that date. At the same time the attorneys for the appellant offered to pay the clerk the filing fees and the fees for making the transcript, but without either specifying any amount or producing any money so as to make the transaction a valid tender. The officer stated, in substance, that he could not then tell the amount required to cover the filing fees and the charge for making the transcript as he had not computed the latter, but that appellant was financially responsible, and good for the necessary payment. In this state the matter was allowed to rest until August 15th, when the clerk indorsed the transcript, “Filed July 24, 1911.” .On motion of the respondent the circuit court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the transcript was not filed within 30 days after the appeal was perfected, and the appellant prosecuted a further appeal to this court.
Affirmed.
For contestee and appellant there was a brief over the names of Messrs. Wheeler & Hurley, Mr. George E. Davis, Mr. John L. Rand and Mr. William H. Pack-wood, Jr., with an oral argument by Mr. Packwood, Jr.
For contestant and respondent there was a brief over the names of Messrs. McCulloch, Soliss & Duncan, with oral arguments by Mr. Albert N. Soliss and Mr. John W. McCulloch.

Opinion:
MR. Justice Burnett
delivered the opinion of the court.
"If the transcript or abstract is not filed with the clerk of the appellate court within the time provided, the appeal shall be deemed abandoned and the effect thereof terminated." Section 554, subd. 2, L. O. L.
The "time provided" is determined by the first clause of that section to be "within thirty days" after the appeal is perfected. These requirements are jurisdictional, and failure to comply with them is fatal. Davidson v. Columbia Timber Co., 49 Or. 577 (91 Pac. 441) ; Burchell v. Averill Machinery Co., 55 Or. 113 (105 Pac. 403).
Section 1113, L. O. L., in part reads thus:
"It shall be the duty of the several clerks of circuit and county courts in this State in counties of not more than 50,000 inhabitants, at the time of the filing of any suit, action or proceeding for the enforcement of private rights, including appeals, to exact from the plaintiff or moving party " certain fees scheduled in that section, " and no complaint, transcript on appeal, petition, writ of review or any other papers in probate proceedings above mentioned shall be filed until such payment is made."
This language is mandatory, not only upon the county clerk, but also upon the courts and we cannot disregard it. The county clerk, as the official servant of the county in the collection of fees as part of its revenue, has no power to waive any of the provisions of the law prescribing his duty. Not only so, but the appellant and his attorneys knew that the scope of the officer's duty was thus restricted. Still further, the fees for making the transcript, as well as the one required to be paid before filing the same, being established in plain terms by the statute, the appellant and his attorneys could easly have computed them and tendered the amount to the clerk; but even this was not done or attempted. The whole transaction as disclosed by the affidavits appears to have been an effort on the part of the appellant to do business with the county clerk on a credit basis when the statute expressly requires it to be done for cash in advance. We are not unmindful of the terms of Section 547, L. O. L., providing that "a pleading or paper shall be filed by delivering the same to the clerk at his office who shall indorse upon it the day of the month and the year and subscribe his name thereto." We have no disposition either to overturn the doctrine of such cases as McDonald v. Crusen, 2 Or. 258; Conant's Estate, 43 Or. 530 (73 Pac. 1018) ; and Bade v. Hibberd, 50 Or. 501 (93 Pac. 364) when considered in the light of the conditions under which they were decided. They hold, in substance, that a paper is deemed filed when left with the clerk for that purpose, although he may not have placed thereon the required indorsement. But that section and these cases deal with the mere physical act of filing the paper, and not with the right to have it filed. They are applicable to the former system under which the fee was the private perquisite of the officer which he might waive at his pleasure. Now, however, the filing fee is the property of the county the prepayment of which must be exacted by the clerk. Its payment in advance is a condition precedent without the performance of which the right to have the paper filed does not exist. A precedent controlling the case in hand is found in Hilts v. Hilts, 43 Or. 162 (72 Pac. 697).
An appellate court can acquire jurisdiction only in the way marked out by the statute. We cannot turn aside from the beaten path thus established, and say that the clerk ought to have disobeyed the law which requires him to exact fees in advance, and forbids him to file the transcript until the filing fee is paid.
The action of the circuit court in dismissing the appeal is affirmed. Affirmed.