Case Name: BIBD v. MAYO
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1914-12-31
Citations: 75 Or. 100
Docket Number: 
Parties: BIBD v. MAYO.
Judges: Mr. Chief Justice McBride did not participate in this decision.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 75
Pages: 100–108

Head Matter:
Motion to strike brief from files overruled December 8,
argued December 14,
reversed December 31, 1914,
rehearing denied February 23, 1915.
BIBD v. MAYO.
(144 Pac. 574; 145 Pac. 13; 146 Pac. 475.)
Appeal and Error — Brief—Motion to Strike.
1. A motion to strike out respondents’ brief because not filed iu time will be overruled when not filed within the 10 days prescribed by Supreme Court rule 23 (117 Pac. xii), where no injury is shown.
Reformation of Instruments — Mutual Mistake — Quantum of Proof.
2. In a suit to reform a deed for mistake, the plaintiff must show precisely and by clear and convincing testimony in what the mistake consisted and that it was mutual.
Reformation of Instruments — Deeds—Mutual Mistake in Description —Sufficiency of Evidence.
3. Evidence in a suit to reform a deed held to show a mutual mistake in consequence of which the description covered an entire lot, instead of only a portion thereof, as the contracting parties intended.
[As to causes and proceedings for reformation of instruments, see note in 65 Am. St. Rep. 481.]
From Clatsop: James A. Bakin, Judge.
This is a suit by Clara S. Bird against Lucre ti a Mary Mayo and Martin N. Mayo. . From a decree favoring defendants, plaintiff appeals and now moves to strike defendants’ brief from the files.
Motion Overruled.
Mr. John M. Hall, for the motion.
Mr. Marry W. Mogue, contra.
In Banc.

Opinion:
Opinion
Per Curiam.
Appellant's brief was filed September 6, 1913. By-stipulation time was granted respondents until January 3, 1914, in which to file their brief.; but, without getting any further time, they did not file the brief until August 22, 1914. No action was taken by the respondents in the meantime to force their appeal to hearing, and no motion was made to strike the brief from the files until October 1st, more than a month after it had been filed. Counsel for respondents filed a showing that during this time, from January to September, he was' sick and in such a condition that he was unable to do the work of preparing the brief.
Rule 23 (117 Pac. xii) provides:
"All motions must be filed within ten days after a party or his counsel obtain knowledge of an alleged failure of the adverse party or his counsel to comply with the requirements of the statute or with the rules of this court. Any neglect to file a motion within such .time will be deemed a waiver of all defects, except matters of jurisdiction. "
This is not a matter of jurisdiction, and as both parties have failed to comply with the rules, and no injury is shown, the motion to strike out will be overruled.
Motion Overruled.