Case Name: STATE ex rel. v. OLCOTT
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1913-09-30
Citations: 67 Or. 214
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE ex rel. v. OLCOTT.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 67
Pages: 214–221

Head Matter:
On Motion to Dismiss Appeal,
decided September 30, 1913.
On the Merits, argued October 15, decided October 21, 1913.
STATE ex rel. v. OLCOTT.
(135 Pac. 95: 135 Pac. 902.)
Appeal and Error — Notice of Appeal — Notice in Open Court.
1. Under Section 550, L. O. L., providing that a party may give notice of appeal in open court at the time judgment is rendered, or thereafter by serving such notice upon all adverse parties, the plaintiff in an action against two defendants, in which the judgment is for the defendants, may appeal from the judgment as to one of such defendants by giving notice of such appeal in open court, without serving notice on the other, even though the other may be an adverse party to the appeal, since all the parties to the action are bound to take cognizance of the notice given in open court.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Presumptions—Weight.
2. The referendum law provides that it shall be a crime for a person to intentionally sign a referendum petition twice. Section 799_ subdivisions 1, 25, L. O. L., provide that identity of person is presumed from identity of name and that a person is innocent of crime or wrong. Held, that these presumptions balance each other as to signatures attached to a referendum petition, so that the burden is on plaintiff, claiming that certain signatures were erroneous as being double signatures of the same person, to prove by other testimony that the same person in fact signed the petition more than once.
Statutes — Referendum Petition — Signatures—Illegibility.
3. Where the genuineness of signatures attached to a referendum petition was not attacked, the signatures could not be objected to for illegibility.
Statutes — Referendum Petition — -Qualifications of Signers — Registered Voters.
4. Under the Constitution providing that the power of referendum may be exercised either by petition signed by 5 per cent of the legal voters or by the legislative assembly, it is not essential to qualify signers of such petition that they be registered voters.
Statutes — Referendum—Defects in Petition.
5. Under Section 3473, L. O. L., providing that the forms given for the right of referendum are not mandatory and if substantially followed shall be sufficient, disregarding clerical and technical errors, mistakes due to absence of street addresses and clerical differences between the names in the affidavits of verification and the signatures to the petition are not fatal.
Evidence — Presumptions—Referendum Petition — Sufficiency.
6. It is the duty of the Secretary of State in the first instance, in his official capacity, to determine by an inspection of a referendum petition whether the signatures are genuine and regularly authenticated, and, as it is to be presumed that he has performed his duty properly, his conclusion will not be interfered with on a mere inspection of the petition.
From Marion: William: Galloway, Judge.
En Banc. Statement by Me. Justice Bean.
This is a suit by tbe State of Oregon, on relation of Gale S. Hill, against Ben W. Olcott, Secretary of State, and Wilfred E» Farrell. From a decree in favor of defendants, the plaintiff appeals as to the defendant Olcott. The respondent by his attorney moves to dismiss this appeal, on the ground that this court has no jurisdiction herein, for the reason that the notice of appeal was not .served upon defendant Wilfred E. Farrell, an adverse party.
Motion Denied.
Mr. Andrew M. Crawford, Attorney General, and Mr. James W. Crawford, Assistant Attorney General, for the motion.
Mr. Gale 8. Hill, District Attorney, and Mr. Ernest B. Bingo, contra.

Opinion:
Me. Justice Bean
delivered the opinion of the court.
The decree appealed from, which was rendered September 4, 1913, and the notice of appeal given in open court, are as follows: "It is considered, ordered, and decreed that the suit be and the same hereby is dismissed, and that neither party recover of and from the other his costs and disbursements in this case. Whereupon the plaintiff gives notice in open court of appeal to the Supreme Court as to defendant Ben W. Olcott."
Plaintiff contends that the defendant Farrell is not a necessary party to the suit, nor an adverse party within the meaning of the law. Section 550, L. O. L., provides that a party to a judgment or decree desiring to appeal therefrom, or some specified part thereof, may by himself or attorney give notice in open court or before the judge, if the order, judgment or decree be rendered or made at chambers, at the time said judgment, decree or order is made, that he appeals from such decision, order, judgment or decree, or from some specified part thereof, to the court to which the appeal is sought to be taken; and such notice shall thereupon by order of the court or the judge therefor be entered in the journal of the court. When such a notice is given in open court, the adverse parties are required to take cognizance thereof. The notice of appeal, as to the portion of the decree appealed from, is couched in general terms. As we construe this notice, it was given to all the parties to the suit. As to the parties to whom notice was given, the form of the notice, so far as we are advised, is in accordance with the practice that has prevailed since the adoption of the statute permitting notice to be given in open court. The plaintiff, being satisfied with the decree as to W. E. Farrell, and not desiring to appeal therefrom, added the words "as to defendant Ben W. Olcott," signifying that the said appeal was from the decree in favor of defendant Ben W. Olcott, but not from the decree in favor of defendant W. E. Farrell.
Our view upon this question renders it unnecessary to consider at this time whether or not W. E. Farrell is an adverse party within the meaning of the statute requiring notice of appeal to be served on all adverse parties.
Notice having been given to each of the defendants, the court has jurisdiction of the cause, and the motion to dismiss the appeal is denied. All concur.
Denied.