Case Name: LEONIE D. SCHMITT v. JACKSON COUNTY CREAMERY and S. A. KROSCHEL
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1924-03-25
Citations: 110 Or. 587
Docket Number: 
Parties: LEONIE D. SCHMITT v. JACKSON COUNTY CREAMERY and S. A. KROSCHEL.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 110
Pages: 587–591

Head Matter:
Submitted on briefs November 20, 1923,
dismissed February 5,
motion to vacate order of dismissal allowed March 11,
objections to motion vacating order of dismissal denied March 18, 1924,
affirmed March 25, 1924.
LEONIE D. SCHMITT v. JACKSON COUNTY CREAMERY and S. A. KROSCHEL.
(222 Pac. 585; 224 Pac. 278.)
Appeal and. Error — Suit Dismissed Where Testimony Necessary to Settlement of Issues on Appeal not Forwarded.
1. A suit will be dismissed as for want of prosecution where the settlement of issues on appeal requires the examination of the testimony taken before the trial court, and which has not been forwarded to appellate eourt though requested by the clerk.
ON THE MERITS.
Reformation of Instruments — Facts Held not to Require Reformation of Contract of Settlement.
2. Where a corporation manager and bookkeeper made a settlement of the bookkeeper’s salary on the basis of a former agreement whereby the latter should receive 25 per cent of the profits, and a statement of profits was submitted by the bookkeeper, omitting certain items of which the manager had knowledge, held, in bookkeeper’s suit for specific performance of the contract of settlement against the corporation and the manager, that such statement was not sufficiently misleading to require reformation of the settlement contract prayed by the manager.
See 4 C. J. 1113.
From Jackson: F. M. Calkins, Judge.
In Banc.
Dismissed. Motion to Vacate. Order of Dismissal Allowed.
For appellants there was a brief over the name of Mr. Porter J. Neff.
For respondent there was a brief over the names of Mr. H. K. Hanna and Mr. W. E. Phipps.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is a suit involving an accounting in connection with a block of stock in the defendant corporation, decided by the Circuit Court in favor of the plaintiff, and appealed by the defendants.
From Jackson: F. M. Calkins, Judge.
In Banc.
The settlement of the issues on appeal required the examination of the testimony taken before the trial court, but as no report of the testimony has been forwarded to this court, notwithstanding requests for the same from our clerk, there are no data by which we can formulate a decision of the questions involved. For want of these, the suit is dismissed as for want of prosecution, neither party to recover costs or disbursements in this suit.
Dismissed.