Case Name: ALLEN et al. v. LEVENS et al.
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1921-06-21
Citations: 101 Or. 466
Docket Number: 
Parties: ALLEN et al. v. LEVENS et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 101
Pages: 466–471

Head Matter:
Argued at Pendleton May 4,
affirmed June 21,
rehearing denied July 30, second [petition for rehearing denied .September 27, 1921.
ALLEN et al. v. LEVENS et al.
(198 Pac. 907; 199 Pac. 595.)
Elections — Appeal in Election Contest must be Taken Within Time Fixed by Contest Statute.
1. The right of appeal in a proceeding to. contest an election depends upon the election contest statute, and must be taken in conformity therewith, and not under the statute relating to appeals in civil eases, and therefore a notice of appeal in an election contest ease, which was no-t taken within 30 days after the entry of judgment, as required by Section 7334, Or. L., gives the appellate court no jurisdiction.
ON PETITION POE BEHEABING.
Appeal and Error — Evidence—Date Stated in Decree Controls Extra Judicial Statements — Judgment Presumed Entered on Day Given.
2. Under Section 799, Or. L., subdivisions 15, 17, creating a presumption that official duty has been regularly performed, and that a judicial record correctly sets forth the rights of the parties, it must be presumed that a judgment under Section 200 was entered the day it was given as required by Section 201, so that a decree reciting that it was entered on the stated date, whieh is the official utterance and imports absolute verity as against an extrajudicial statement, controls a statement in the abstract that it was entered on a later date and the file mark of the clerk whose duty it was to enter tie proceedings under Section 584, and which bore tbe later date, so that an appeal was too late which was taken more than thirty days after the date stated in the decree, but within thirty days of the later date.
From Harney: Dalton Biggs, Judge.
In Banc.
The plaintiffs brought this proceeding to contest an election held in Harney County to determine whether or not an irrigation district to be known as “Harney Basin Irrigation District No. 1” should be established. The Circuit Court sustained a general demurrer to their petition and, as the plaintiffs refused to plead further, dismissed the proceeding. The judgment was entered October 14, 1920. The notice of appeal to this court was given December 4, 1920.
Affirmed. Rehearing Denied.
For appellants there was a brief over the names of Messrs. Hawley & Hawley and Mr. Fremont Wood, with oral arguments by Mr. Edwin Snow and Mr. C. B. McConnell.
For respondents there was a brief over the names of Mr. George S. Sizemore, District Attorney, and Messrs. McCulloch & Duncan, with an oral argument by Mr. B. M. Duncan.

Opinion:
BURNETT, C. J.
Treating of the contest of election in such cases, it is laid down in Section 7334, Or. L.:
"The court having jurisdiction shall speedily try such contests and determine, upon the hearing, whether the election was fairly conducted, and in substantial compliance with the requirements of this act, and enter its judgment accordingly. Such contest must be brought within sixty days after the canvass of the vote and declaration of the result. The right of appeal is hereby given to either party to the record within thirty days after the entry of judgment."
It is said in Tazwell v. Davis, 64 Or. 325, 341 (130 Pac. 400), by Mr. Justice Bean, delivering judgment:
' t pipg right of appeal from the decisions of inferior courts in election cases does not exist unless it has been conferred by some constitutional or statutory provision: City of Portland v. Nottingham, 58 Or. 1 (113 Pac. 28). Statutes authorizing appeals to be taken from judgments rendered in civil cases do not apply to contested election proceedings under the statute, as they are not civil cases": Citing authorities.
We may derive from this language the doctrine that the statute under which this contest is conducted is complete within itself and that, being sui generis, the party desiring to avail himself of an appeal under its terms must comply therewith and serve his notice of appeal within thirty days after the entry of the judgment. If this is not done strictly in compliance with the statute, this court has no jurisdiction to decide the cause on the issues presented in the court below.
In Livesly v. London, 69 Or. 275 (138 Pac. 853), Mr. Justice Ramsey distinguished between the ordinary suit or action, and proceedings under an election contest, holding that the latter are peculiar to themselves and are governed exclusively by the statute creating them, and finally decided that there is no right of appeal except when it is conferred by statute. The doctrine is thus succinctly stated in Donart v. Stewart, 63 Or. 76, 82 (126 Pac. 608):
"An appeal is a right conferred by statute upon Superior Courts to review the- final determinations of inferior judicial tribunals, when causes tried therein are properly brought up for that purpose, and in the transfer of such proceedings the mode prescribed in the enactment granting the privilege is the measure of the, bestowed power in the exercise of which neither court nor party can restrict, enlarge, or diminish the authority given."
At the very threshold of our investigation we are halted by this principle, and any treatment we should give the questions suggested by the pleadings would be mere obiter dictum, having no force or effect, because we have no jurisdiction. The consequence is, that the judgment of the court below cannot be disturbed. It must stand as affirmed. Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Brown took no part in the consideration of this case.