Case Name: STRICKLER v. PORTLAND RY., L. & P. CO.
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1916-03-14
Citations: 79 Or. 526
Docket Number: 
Parties: STRICKLER v. PORTLAND RY., L. & P. CO.
Judges: Mr. Chief Justice Moore, Mr. Justice Burnett and Mr. Justice Harris concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 79
Pages: 526–533

Head Matter:
Motion to dismiss submitted on briefs December 24,
denied December 29, 1914.
Argued on the merits February 24,
affirmed March 14, 1916.
STRICKLER v. PORTLAND RY., L. & P. CO.
(144 Pac. 1193; 155 Pac. 1195.)
Appeal and Error—Notice—Time for Service—“Within the Day.”
1. In view of Section 201, L. O. L., providing that judgment in conformity to the verdict shall be entered by the clerk “within the day” on which verdict is returned, the term “within the day,” meaning within 24 hours, where verdict was returned December 5th at 5:25 P. M. and judgment entered December 6th at 2:10 p. M., a notice of appeal served and filed February 4th was within the 60 days from the entry of judgment.
ON THE MERITS.
Appeal and Error—Presenting Questions in Trial Court—Challenges to 3 ury.
2. Under Section 117, L. O. L., providing that no challenge shall be made or allowed to a jury panel, a complaint that the cause was ■tried before special jurors cannot be considered on appeal, where none of the jurors was challenged.
[As to right to interpose challenge to array of jurors in absence of statute, see note in Ann. Cas. 1912A, 1137.]
Appeal and Error — Record — Questions Presented for Review—Evidence Excluded.
3. Under Section 171, L. O. L., requiring-an exception to state the objections with so mueh of the evidence or other matter as is necessary to explain it,-and no more, where a bill of exceptions does not disclose the answers whieh plaintiff expected to excluded interrogatories to witnesses, the Supreme Court cannot determine whether they would have been favorable to plaintiff.
Negligence—Actions—Admissibility of Evidence—Subsequent Conditions.
4. In an action for causing death, subsequent changes or repairs cannot be proved to show antecedent negligence, but, where the jury have viewed the premises, evidence of any alteration since the injury is admissible.
Appeal and Error—Review—Harmless Error—Exclusion of Evidence.
5. In an action for causing death, any error in exeluding evidence of conditions at the place of the accident subsequent to the event where the jury viewed the premises was cured by the admission of evidence describing the conditions at the time of the accident.
Railroads — Accidents at Crossings — Actions—Questions for- Jury.
6. In an action for causing death, in a railroad crossing accident, evidence of decedent’s contributory negligence held, sufficient to take the question to the jury.
Trial — Questions of Fact — Sufficiency of Evidence.
7. Where more than one inference may be drawn legitimately from the evidence, one favorable and the other unfavorable to the party having the burden of proof, the question is for the jury, and this rule is applicable to plaintiff as well as defendant.
From Multnomah: William N. Gatens, Judge.
This is an action by G. F. Strickler, administrator of the estate of Ed. Wechter, deceased, against the Portland Railway, Light & Power Company, a corporation.' On motion to dismiss appeal.
Denied.
Messrs. Griffith, Leiter & Allen, for the motion.
Mr. W. A. Burke and Mr. J. G. Simmons, contra.
In Banc.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Moore
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a motion to dismiss an appeal on the ground that the notice thereof was not served within 60 days from the time the judgment was rendered. It appears from the affidavits of plaintiff's counsel that the cause having been tried and submitted to the jury they returned a verdict herein for the defendant on December 5, 1913, at 5:25 p. m., and after the clerk's office had been closed for the day. The certificate of the clerk shows that the judgment was entered on the following day at 2:10 p. m. The notice of appeal was served and filed February 4, 1914. The statute prescribing the time of rendering and recording judgments as far as involved herein reads:
"If the trial be by jury, judgment shall be given by the court in conformity with the verdict and so entered by the clerk within the day on which the verdict is returned": Section 201, L. O. L.
In Casner v. Hoskins, 64 Or. 254, 281 (128 Pac. 841, 850), in referring to such enactment, it is said:
"This clause of the statute was probably designed to create a lien as soon as possible after a verdict is rendered, but whether the provision is mandatory or ministerial is not deemed to be important, for the term 'within the day' evidently means within 24 hours, otherwise a verdict returned just before midnight would be ineffectual unless a judgment could be entered thereon before the close of the last moment of that day. Such a rule would be a travesty on justice. ' '
The notice was served within the time limited, and this being so, the motion is denied.
Motion Denied.