Case Name: MITCHELL v. COACH
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1915-12-15
Citations: 83 Or. 45
Docket Number: 
Parties: MITCHELL v. COACH.
Judges: Mr. Chief Justice McBride, Mr. Justice Harris and Mr. Justice Burnett concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 83
Pages: 45–51

Head Matter:
Motion to dismiss appeal denied December 15, 1915.
Argued on the merits January 26, reversed and nonsuit entered February 13, 1917.
MITCHELL v. COACH.
(153 Pac. 478; 162 Pac. 1058.)
Appeal and. Error — Record on Appeal — Return of Notice — Conclusiveness.
1. The return of service of notice of appeal as included in the transcript cannot be contradicted or impeached by extraneous evidence, so that an indorsement on the notice, “Filed July 19, 1915,” is conclusive.
Appeal and Error — Record on Appeal — Defect in Undertaking — Time for Objection.
_ 2. Since the filing of the undertaking on appeal is not jurisdictional, a motion attacking it for defect in time of filing must be filed within 10 days of the filing of the undertaking, as required by Rule 23, 56 Or. 623 (117 Pac. xii), or it is deemed waived, so that a motion filed December 3d, attacking an undertaking filed August 10th on the ground that it was filed too late, cannot be considered.
Appeal and Error — Record on Appeal — Amendment.
3. Where the return of service of a notice of appeal does not conform to the facts, it may on motion be amended.
Appeal and Error — Record—Review—Motion for Nonsuit.
4. While generally the decision on a motion for nonsuit will not be reviewed without a transcript of the entire evidence, the motion being on the ground that plaintiff's testimony shows the contract sued on to be against public policy, it is enough that the bill of exceptions states that the only evidence offered or given by or for plaintiffs as to the nature of the contract is as there set out.
Contracts — To Defeat Justice — Recovery for Services.
5. The sole object of the employment of plaintiffs being to defeat the ends of justice on a prosecution, with a reckless disregard of the means employed, its illegality will prevent recovery for services thereunder.
[As to contracts the consideration for which is the stifling of a criminal prosecution, see notes in 31 Am. Dec. 600; 22 Am. Rep. 121; 49 Am. Rep. 48.]
From Coos: John S. Coke, Judge.
This is an action by W. J. Mitchell and L. Gr. Carpenter, doing business under the firm name and style of Coast Detective Bureau, against J. W. Coach. Bespondent moves to dismiss defendant’s appeal.
Motion Denied.
Mr. Charles F. McKnight, for the motion.
Mr. F. J. Feeney and Messrs. Hammond <& Derby-shire, contra.
In Banc.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Benson
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a motion to dismiss the appeal upon the grounds: (1) That the appellant has failed to serve or file his notice of appeal within the time prescribed by law; (2) that the undertaking on appeal was not filed within the time prescribed by the statute.
The notice of appeal as it appears in the transcript contains the following proof of service:
"State of Oregon,
Coos County — ss.
"I hereby certify that I served this notice of appeal upon C. F. McKnight, attorney for plaintiffs, at Coos County, Oregon, on the 19th day of July, 1915.
"A. S. Hammond,
"Attorney for Defendant."
The notice is also indorsed as filed on July 19, 1915, which is conceded to be within the statutory time, the judgment having been entered on May 20, 1915; but plaintiff seeks by affidavits to show that as a matter of fact it was not filed until July 20th. This court has held that the transcript as filed here cannot be contradicted or impeached by extraneous evidence: Rodman v. Manning, 50 Or. 507 (93 Pac. 366).
As to the date of filing the undertaking, it is sufficient to say that it was served upon plaintiff on August 9, 1915,. and filed- August 10, 1915, while the motion attacking it was not filed until December 3, 1915. Since the filing of the undertaking is not jurisdictional (Dowell v. Bolt, 45 Or. 90, 75 Pac. 714), it falls within the influence of rule 23 of this court (56 Or. 623, 117 Pac. xii), which says:
"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."
Referring again to the proof of service of the notice of appeal, the defendant has filed a counter-motion for leave to amend the same to conform to the fact. The case comes strictly within the rule declared in the case of Barbre v. Goodale, 28 Or. 468 (38 Pac. 67, 43 Pac. 378), and the amendment is therefore allowed.
The motion to dismiss is denied.
Motion Denied.