Case Name: COOPER v. BOGUE
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1919-04-08
Citations: 92 Or. 122
Docket Number: 
Parties: COOPER v. BOGUE.
Judges: McBride, C. J., and Burnett and Harris, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 92
Pages: 122–127

Head Matter:
Argued March 20,
affirmed April 8,
rehearing denied April 22, 1919.
COOPER v. BOGUE.
(179 Pac. 658; 180 Pac. 103.)
Appeal and Error — Writ of Review — Appeal—Concurrent Remedies.
1. A party cannot proseeute an appeal from a judgment while a writ of review to the same court is pending, since the two remedies, though concurrent, cannot be exercised at the same time.
ON REHEARING.
Courts — District Court — Appeal—Trial of Cause Anew.
2. Section 556, L. O. E., providing that on appeal from judgment of County Court the action shall be tried anew on substantially the issues tried in the lower court, includes issues of faet as on denial of pleading and issues of law as on demurrer tó a pleading.
Certiorari — Writ of Review — Issues Presented.
3. Only issues of law may be decided on a writ of review.
Appeal and Error — Concurrent Remedies — Election.
4. Where plaintiff elected to proceed by review for correction of errors complained of, it barred his subsequent appeal for the correction of errors of law as well as on his issues of fact; Section 605, L. O. L., making a writ of review and remedy of appeal concurrent but not cumulative, so that choice of one is a waiver of the other. ■
From Multnomah: John P. Kavanaugh, Judge.
Department 1.
On September 1,1917, plaintiff began this action in tbe District Court of Multnomah County, to recover from the defendant $30.90, upon an account stated The defendant answered, denying tbe material allegations of tbe complaint, and also pleaded affirmatively three separate counterclaims. Plaintiff demurred to tbe affirmative answers, and on November 2, 1917, the demurrer was overruled, and plaintiff refused to plead further. On November 12,1917, tbe case was tried in the District Court, resulting in a judgment rendered on the pleadings, in favor of tbe defendant. On November 20, 1917, plaintiff filed bis petition for a writ of review in tbe Circuit Court, and on tbe same day tbe writ was allowed. On December 5, 1917, plaintiff applied to tbe judge of tbe District Court for an order allowing an appeal from tbe same judgment, 'which was allowed and the appeal was thereafter perfected. On January 2, 1918, defendant moved to dismiss tbe appeal, on the ground that a writ of review was then pending in tbe Circuit Court in tbe same action, which motion was allowed, and a judgment entered in favor of defendant for bis costs and disbursements upon tbe appeal, and plaintiff appeals.
Aeiurmbd.
For appellant there was a brief and an oral argument by Mr. W. L. Cooper.
For respondent there was a brief over tbe names of Mr. J. Leroy Smith and Mr. J. M. Hickson, with an oral argument by Mr. Smith.

Opinion:
BENSON, J.
This case presents but one question for our consideration. Can a party prosecute an appeal from a judgment while a writ of review to the same court is still pending? This question has been definitely answered in the negative by this court, in the case of Clubine v. City of Merrill, 83 Or. 87 (163 Pac. 85). The two remedies are concurrent but they cannot be exercised at the same time.
The judgment, of the lower court is therefore affirmed. Affirmed.
McBride, C. J., and Burnett and Harris, JJ., concur.