Case Name: BANK OF COMMERCE v. BERTRUM
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1909-11-23
Citations: 55 Or. 349
Docket Number: 
Parties: BANK OF COMMERCE v. BERTRUM.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 55
Pages: 349–352

Head Matter:
Argued November 2,
decided November 23, 1909 ;
rehearing denied January 25, 1910.
BANK OF COMMERCE v. BERTRUM.
[104 Pac. 963 ; 106 Pac. 444.]
Appeal and Error—Abandonment op Appeal.
1. Where no transcript of the notice of appeal or undertaking was filed by cross-appellant, and no extension of time for so doing appears in the record, and no fee for filing such transcript has been paid the clerk, the cross appeal, if any was attempted, will be deemed abandoned.
- Appeal and Error—Time in Which to File Transcript—Jurisdiction.
2. As to completing the record on appeal, there is no distinction between cases in which the appeal was taken from a part of the decree or the whole, and in order to confer jurisdiction upon the Supreme Court, a transcript containing the notice of appeal, undertaking and the final judgment must be sent up and filed within the time limited by law for so doing.
From Union: John W. Knowles, Judge.
This is a suit by the Bank of Commerce, Limited, against Charles Bertrum to restrain the defendant from disposing of a certain interest in logs, lumber and other property in Union County, upon which plaintiff claims to have a mortgage given by one W. R. Kivette. From a decree in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
For appellant there was a brief over the names of Mr. John L. Rand and Messrs. Cavanah & Blake with an oral argument by Mr. Rand.
For respondent there was a brief over the names of Messrs. Ramsey & Oliver with an oral argument by Mr. Turner Oliver.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice McBride
delivered the opinion of the court.
1. Plaintiff sued to restrain defendant from disposing of a two-thirds interest in certain logs, lumber, and other property, in Union County, upon which it claimed to have a mortgage given by one W. R. Kivette. The property mortgaged was partnership property, owned by a firm composed of Kivette and the defendant; Kivette having a two-thirds interest and defendant a one-third. The com plaint also charged that defendant had sold and converted to his own use portions of the mortgaged property to the injury of plaintiff, and prayed for a receiver and an accounting.
Decided January 25, 1910.
[106 Pac. 444.]
Plaintiff had a decree in the court below, but contends that the court erred in allowing defendant the sum of $375 for services in managing the property. Upon an examination of the testimony in the whole case, we do not think the allowance inequitable.
This case was argued as though there had been a cross-appeal by defendant; but no transcript of the notice of appeal or undertaking was filed by defendant, and no extension of time for so doing appears anywhere in the record; nor has any fee for filing such transcript been paid to the clerk. If any appeal was attempted, it must be deemed to have been abandoned. Defendant, not having perfected his appeal, must be held to be satisfied with the decree of the court below. Shook v. Colohan, 12 Or. 239 (6 Pac. 503) ; Shirley v. Burch, 16 Or. 83 (18 Pac. 351: 8 Am. St. Rep. 273) ; Thornton v. Krimbel, 28 Or. 271 (42 Pac. 995) ; Cooper v. Thomason, 30 Or. 162 (45 Pac. 296) ; Goldsmith v. Elwert, 31 Or. 539 (50 Pac. 867) ; Board of Regents v. Hutchinson, 46 Or. 57 (78 Pac. 1028.)
The decree of the lower court is affirmed, and defendant shall recover costs in this court Affirmed.