Case Name: BOYER v. BURTON
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1916-03-28
Citations: 79 Or. 662
Docket Number: 
Parties: BOYER v. BURTON.
Judges: Mr. Chief Justice Moore, Mr. Justice Bean and Mr. Justice Benson concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 79
Pages: 662–668

Head Matter:
Motion to dismiss cross-appellant’s appeal sustained June 1, 1915.
Argued on the merits March 7,
reversed March 28, 1916.
BOYER v. BURTON.
(149 Pac. 83; 156 Pac. 281.)
Appeal and Error — Right of Appeal — Consent Judgment.
1. Where plaintiffs filed an alternative motion for a judgment for a certain amount, or, if found not entitled thereto, for a less amount, they waived their right to appeal from a judgment entered for them for the less amount.
ON THE MERITS.
Pleading — Judgment on Pleadings.
2. Under Section 6480, L. O. L., providing that no tolls shall be collected for travel unless a signboard be posted at each gate in full view of the travel on the road, with rates of toll plainly .printed or written thereon, in an action to recover tolls, where the answer denies that the plaintiffs kept posted a signboard giving rates of toll, plaintiffs are not entitled to judgment on the pleadings.
Turnpikes and Toll Roads — Notice—Actions for Tolls — Defenses.
3. The fact that the lessees of a road have failed to maintain it in accordance with their contract does not bar a recovery of tolls from a user of the road, unless either the statute .or the lease in terms •makes the performance of the agreement to maintain the road in the manner provided for a condition precedent to the right to compel the payment of tolls.
Turnpikes and Toll Roads — Right to Collect Tolls — Forfeiture.
4. The right to collect tolls is a franchise which cannot be forfeited by a third person in a collateral proceeding, though Section 6483, L. O. L., authorizes the district attorney to maintain an action against the lessee in the name of the county to have the lease forfeited when the lessee shall fail to comply with its provisions.
From Tillamook: Harry H. Belt, Judge.
This is an action by John W. Boyer, and M. C. Boyer against J. M. Burton. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, defendant appeals, and plaintiffs file cross-appeal. Defendant files motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s cross-appeal.
Motion Sustained.
Messrs. Ramsey, Lange & Nott, for the motion.
Mr. H. T. Botts, contra.
In Banc.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Eakin
delivered the opinion of the court.
In this case the defendant appealed, and the plaintiffs filed a cross-appeal. The defendant now moves to dismiss the cross-appeal, for the reason that the judgment cannot be appealed from by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs consented to the rendition of the judgment given, and thereby waived all right to appeal from it. They filed an alternative motion for a judgment for the sum of $1,264.80, or if the court should find that they were not entitled to that judgment, then that it grant judgment in their favor for the sum of $421.60, and for their costs and disbursements. The court acting upon the said motion granted them the alternative prayer and rendered judgment in their favor for $421,-60, and for their costs and disbursements.
It has been held by this court frequently that no appeal lies from a judgment or decree entered by consent: Twitchell v. Risley, 56 Or. 226 (107 Pac. 459); Rader v. Barr, 22 Or. 495 (29 Pac. 889). Here the motion is in the alternative, that if the court should deny the first part of the motion, it should enter judgment for plaintiffs and against the defendant for $421.60, and for plaintiffs' costs and disbursements. The court found that plaintiffs were not entitled to judgment for the $1,264.80.
The motion to dismiss is sustained as to plaintiffs' appeal. Motion Sustained.