Case Name: SMITH v. BURNS
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1913-09-30
Citations: 71 Or. 133
Docket Number: 
Parties: SMITH v. BURNS,
Judges: Mr. Justice Bean, Mr. Justice Burnett and Mr. Justice Ramsey concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 71
Pages: 133–138

Head Matter:
Motion to dismiss appeal denied September 30, 1913.
On the merits, argued April 24, modified June 9, 1914.
SMITH v. BURNS,
(135 Pac. 200; 142 Pac. 352.)
Appeal and Error—Notice of Appeal—Service—“Adverse Party.”
1. Section 550, L. O. L., requiring a notiee of appeal to be served on such adverse parties as have appeared in the action, does not require one of two defendants against whom a joint judgment for personal injuries has been rendered to serve a notice upon his eodefendant who did not appeal, since an “adverse party” is one whose interest in the judgment appealed from is in conflict with the modification or reversal sought by the appellant, and the eodefendant in a tort action could not be in any way prejudiced by the reversal, not being entitled to contribution from the other defendant.
Master and Servant—Injury to Third Person—Existence of Relation.
2. The owner of an automobile,, whose stepson, living in another apartment, drove the ear for the owner and his family at times, but did not have authority to get or use the ear without permission from the owner or his wife, is not liable for injuries from being struck by the automobile when operated by the stepson without the knowledge or consent of the owner or his wife.
[As to acts of servant for which master is not responsible, see notes in 27 Am. Rep. 702; 54 Am. St. Rep. 71.]
From Multnomah: George N. Davis, Judge.
In Banc. Statement by Mr. Chiep Justice McBride.
This is a motion to dismiss an appeal in an action by George Smith against D. C. Burns and Arthur Gossman.
The defendant Burns was sued jointly with one Gossman for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff, whose complaint alleged that Gossman, while driving Burns’ automobile upon business for Burns, negli gently ran over and injured plaintiff. The defendants answered separately, and upon the trial there was a verdict and judgment against both of them for $750. Burns alone appealed, but made no service of notice upon his codefendant. The motion to dismiss is made upon the theory that Grossman is an adverse party within the meaning of the statute; that, no service having been made upon him, this court is without jurisdiction.
Motion Denied.
Mr. S. D. Parker and Mr. I sham N. Smith, for the motion.
Mr. Paul M. Long and Messrs. Christopherson & Matthews, contra.
For authorities on the responsibility of the owner when ear is being used by servant or another for his own pleasure or business, see notes in 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 235; 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1033; 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 216; 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 93; 26 L>. R. A. (N. S.) 328; 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 79; 37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 834, and 47 L. R. A. (N. S.) 662. Reporter.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice McBride.
Section 550, L. O. L., contains the following provision:
"The party desiring to appeal may cause a notice, signed by himself or attorney, to be served on such adverse party or parties as have appeared in the action,", etc.
An adverse party is a party whose interest in the judgment appealed from is in conflict with the modification or reversal sought by appellant: Conrad v. Pacific Packing Co., 34 Or. 341 (57 Pac. 1021). Were this a case arising upon contract or matters of that character wherein one judgment debtor can call upon another for contribution in case he is compelled to pay all of the judgment, he would of necessity be, injuriously affected if the appealing party should be released upon appeal; but in a tort of the character declared upon here he cannot call upon his codefendant for contribution in any event: 7 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law (2 ed.), 364; 9 Cyc. 804. The defendant Grossman by not ap pealing has, in effect, said that he is satisfied with the judgment, and in any event he cannot he placed in a worse position by any change in the judgment against his codefendant upon appeal. Motion Denied.
Decided June 9, 1914.
(142 Pac. 352.)
Department 2. Statement by Mr. Justice Bakin.
This is an action for damages for personal injuries suffered when plaintiff was struck by defendant's automobile. The defendant D. 0. Burns, at the time of the acts complained of, was owner of the automobile by which the injury was caused. Arthur Gross-man, his stepson, was operating the machine at the time of the accident. He was married and lived at 503 Mill Street, an apartment house, in which defendant Burns also occupied an apartment. Before his marriage he lived with Burns. He was in the employ of the Oregon Hardware Company. Burns owned and maintained the auto as a pleasure car for his family, and Grossman drove the car for Burns and his family at times, but did not have authority to get or use the car without permission from Burns or his wife. He had used it by express permission on a few occasions. On the day of the accident neither Burns nor his wife was at home, and Grossman took the car to go after his wife, who was on the east side of the river. On his return the car collided with plaintiff, causing the injury of which he complains; and he brought this action against Burns and Grossman for damages. Bums answered separately disclaiming liability. Upon trial a verdict was returned against the defendants jointly, and from a judgment thereon, defendant Burns appeals.