Case Name: AUSTIN OSBURN v. MARY H. De FORCE, Administratrix
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1927-12-20
Citations: 123 Or. 352
Docket Number: 
Parties: AUSTIN OSBURN v. MARY H. De FORCE, Administratrix.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 123
Pages: 352–353

Head Matter:
Submitted on motion to recall mandate.
Opinion on the merits September 14,
motion denied December 20, 1927.
AUSTIN OSBURN v. MARY H. De FORCE, Administratrix.
(262 Pac. 222.)
For the motion, Mr. John W. Kaste and Mr. Nicholas Jaureguy.
Contra, Messrs. G. C. S A. C. Fulton and Mr. James L. Mope.

Opinion:
COSHOW, J.
This matter comes on to be heard on the motion of defendant to recall and correct the mandate. The mandate remanded the case for a new trial. Defendant complains because a new trial was ordered. We are not given the benefit of any authority or citations of authorities supporting the motion. We refused to try the question of damages demanded in the counterclaim of the defendant because we thought it could be better tried by a jury. If the court has erred in permitting the complaint to be amended .giR u;-2l-od. mJh afijdp^d-t-,ss-ipfiapt.irrg -tire-motion, that eri(u>r can be corrected upon appeJL Thst question is riot properly raised by the motion. We do not think that the mandate is erroneous. We decline to express an (opinion upon the question of the amended complaint which, ;ie. mot before us. The propriety of the amended complaint determined upon a motion to recall and correct C mandate. For these reasons the motion to recall and correct the mandate is denied.
Motion Denied.