Case Name: In Re ANDERSEN'S ESTATE. DE GOLIA v. ANDERSEN
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1921-03-09
Citations: 101 Or. 94
Docket Number: 
Parties: In Re ANDERSEN’S ESTATE. DE GOLIA v. ANDERSEN.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 101
Pages: 94–110

Head Matter:
Motion to dismiss appeal filed February 3,
overruled March 9,
submitted on briefs March 25, affirmed May 17, rehearing denied June 28, 1921.
In Re ANDERSEN’S ESTATE. DE GOLIA v. ANDERSEN.
(188 Pac. 164; 198 Pac. 236.)
Time — Day Following Entry of Judgment to be Excluded to Computation of Time for Filing and Serving Notice of Appeal.
1. The day following the entry of a judgment is to be excluded in the computation of time within which notice of appeal may be served and filed, under Section 550, L. O. L., as amended by G-eneral Laws of 1913, page 617, and where judgment was rendered and entered on Monday, November 3, 1919, notice of appeal served and filed January 3, 1920, was served and filed in time.
ON THE MERITS.
Appeal and Error — Undertaking on Appeal from County Court, Which'is Limited to a Definite Sum, is Insufficient.
2. ' An undertaking on appeal from a judgment of the County Court, denying-a claim against an estate whieh was limited to a definite n”d specified sum, is insufficient, and does not comply with. Section 551, Or. L.
Appeal and Error — Allowance of Amendments to Undertaking on. Appeal from County Court Proper.
3. Where an appeal from a judgment of the County Court, disallowing a claim against an estate, was taken in good faith, and) the insufficiency of the undertaking, which was limited to a. specified sum, was the result of a mistake, it was proper for the-Circuit Court in view of Section 550, subdivision 4, Or. L., despite-the filing of a motion to dismiss the appeal, to allow thé filing of an amended undertaking complying with Section 551,
Executors and Administrators — Facts Constituting Claim Against-Estate Need not be Averred With Particularity Required in. Complaint.
4. Although a verified claim against the estate of a deeedent, takes the place of a complaint, the facts constituting the claim need not be stated with the degree of particularity required in a. complaint filed in an action at law.
Executors and Administrators — A Claimant must Recover upon the-Claim as Presented.
5. One making claim. against the estate of a decedent must recover, if, at all, upon the claim as presented.
Partnership — -Whether a Partnership Exists is Question for the-Court.
6. Where the facts are undisputed the question whether a partnership exists is one of law for the court.
Partnership — Person Receiving Money for Automobile Which wad not Delivered Held Agent of, Instead of Partner of, Decedent.
7. One who received from claimant money for an automobilewhieh .was never delivered held the agent of, instead of the partner-of, decedent; it appearing that such person had no interest in the-profits, but was employed as agent receiving portion of the profits as compensation for his services.
Executors and Administrators — Recovery Could be had Against. Estate, on Claim of Liability as Partner, on Evidence that Decedent was Liable as Principal.
8. In a proceeding against the estate of a deeedent on account of money paid for an automobile, whieh was never delivered, where the evidence showed the liability of deeedent as principal, it appearing that the one who received the money was his agent,, recovery could be had under the verified claim, which alleged a partnership between decedent and the agent receiving the money, the claim in effect alleging that claimant made a contract for the purchase of an automobile, and that the agent received the money, etc.
Appeal and Error — Incorrect Instruction Harmless, "Where Correct Result was Reached,
9. Where the estate of decodent was in any event liable as principal, the giving of an ineorreet instruction, which predicated liability on the theory that decedent was a partner with the one who in fact was his agent, was harmless.
Appeal and Error — Exclusion of Evidence Harmless, if Erroneous.
10. In a proceeding against the estate of the decedent on account of money paid for an automobile which was not delivered, where the verified claim alleged that a relation of partnership existed between decedent and his agent who received .the money, held that, where claimant had testified that he had previously begun suit against agent, the exelusion of a complaint, alleging that agent was doing business under the name under which decedent did business, was harmless.
Witnesses — Restriction of Cross-examination, Relating to Immaterial Matters Held not Error.
11. Where claimant and his wife both testified that she lent him the money which he paid to decedent’s agent, it was immaterial whether claimant .repaid his wife or not, for in no event could she recover, and hence the restriction of her cross-examination on the question of repayment by claimant was proper.
From Clatsop: James A. Earth, Judge.
In Banc.
In the matter of the estate of Frederick Andersen, deceased. Proceeding by G-. E. De Golia against Charles Andersen, administrator of the estate. From a judgment in favor of the former, the latter appeals. On motion to dismiss, appeal. Motion overruled.
Overruled.
Messrs. G. G. & 'A. G. Fulton, for the motion.
Messrs. Norblad $ Hesse, contra.
On first and last days in computing time for rendition and docketing of judgment and taking appeal, see notes in 49 L. R. A. 224, 226; 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 689. Reporter.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is a motion to dismiss the appeal. Judgment was rendered and entered on Monday, November 3, 1919; the notice of appeal was served and filed January 3, 1920. It is contended by respondent that the service and filing is one day late. Bespondent cites the following sections of the Code:
"An appeal to the Supreme Court, if not taken at the time of the rendition of the judgment or decree appealed from, or at the time of making the interlocutory order appealed from, shall he taken by serving and filing the notice of appeal within sixty (60) days from the entry of the judgment, order or decree appealed from ": Section 550, L. O. L., as amended, Gen. Laws, 1913, Chapter 319.
"The time within which an act is to be done, as provided in this Code, shall be computed by excluding the first day and including the last, unless the last day falls upon Sunday or other nonjudicial day, in which case the last day shall be excluded": Section 531, L. O. L.
The method of computing time within which a notice of appeal should be served and filed may be said to have been in a state of uncertainty until the case of United States Nat. Bank v. Shefler, 77 Or. 579 (143 Pac. 51, 152 Pac. 234), in which case it was held by this court, though not without dissent, that the day following the entry of a judgment was to be excluded in the computation of time.
This rule, having been generally accepted by the profession, wall be adhered to, although there are authorities holding a contrary doctrine.
Computing the time according to the rule in the case cited, the appellant is within the statute, and the motion to dismiss will be overruled.
Motion to Dismiss Overruled.