Case Name: MITCHELL v. STURTEVANT
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1915-11-16
Citations: 78 Or. 214
Docket Number: 
Parties: MITCHELL v. STURTEVANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 78
Pages: 214–215

Head Matter:
On motion to dismiss appeal, argued October 8,
allowed November 16, 1915.
MITCHELL v. STURTEVANT.
(152 Pac. 875.)
Appeal and Error — Transcript—Dismissal.
1. Under Section 554, L. O. L., as amended by Laws of 1913, page 618, providing that appellant, within 30 days after perfecting his appeal, shall file in the appellate court a transcript of such an abstract as the rules of that court may require, or so much of the record as is necessary to intelligibly present the questions to be. determined by that court, the original files in the court below, without any certificate identifying them, and without an abstract as required by Supreme Court rule 6 (117 Pac. ix), or any explanation for failure in that regard, filed on appeal from an order of the Circuit Court after notice of appeal was served and filed, did not constitute the transcript required on appeal, and the appeal would be dismissed,
From Lane: George F. Skipworth, Judge.
In Banc.
Statement by Mr. Justice Benson.
This is a proceeding by Lucy Belle Mitchell, object-^ ing to the final account of Mary E. Sturtevant, executrix of the estate of Joseph K. Sturtevant, deceased. From an order dismissing an appeal to the Circuit Court, plaintiff appeals. Bespondent now moves to dismiss the appeal to this court. Motion allowed and appeal dismissed.
Dismissed.
Mr. Fred E. Smith and Mr. M. Vernon Parsons, for the motion.
Mr. George B. Dorris, contra.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Benson
delivered the opinion of the court.
The order was made and entered by the lower court on April 10, 1915. The notice of appeal was served on April 19th, and filed on April 21st. On May 5th a mass of papers which appear to be the original files, both in the Probate and Circuit Courts, but without any certificate identifying them, were fastened together and filed here. No abstract or other paper was filed in this court until July 22d, when the motion now under consideration was filed. Thereafter, on July 28th, appellant filed her brief. The papers filed on May 5th do not constitute such a transcript as is required by statute (Section 554, L. O. L.; Laws 1913, p. 618), or by the rules of this court. Neither is there any abstract on file herein, as required by Buie 6 of this court (117 Pac. ix), nor has appellant offered any explanation or excuse for her failure in this regard.
It follows that the motion to dismiss must be allowed ; and it is so ordered.
Appeal Dismissed.