Case Name: NICK TOPOLOS v. O. H. SKOTHEIM et al.
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1926-10-19
Citations: 126 Or. 683
Docket Number: 
Parties: NICK TOPOLOS v. O. H. SKOTHEIM et al.
Judges: Rand, C. J., and Rossman, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 126
Pages: 683–694

Head Matter:
Motion to dismiss denied October 19, 1926,
argued on the merits March 29, affirmed October 9, 1928.
NICK TOPOLOS v. O. H. SKOTHEIM et al.
(250 Pac. 235; 270 Pac. 753.)
For the motion, Mr. Arthur Langguth.
Contra, Messrs. Lewis, Lewis & Finnigan and Mr. John J. Beckman.

Opinion:
McBRIDE, O. J.
This is a motion to dismiss an appeal, because of the insufficiency of the notice. The notice is entitled: "In the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Multnomah County," but does' not state what department of said court, and it is plausibly argued that such a description is insufficient. Without reciting the various cases in which this court held notices of appeal to be either sufficient or otherwise, it suffices to say that, as a general rule to which there are no exceptions, if from the notice itself the judgment appealed from can be identified, it will be sufficient in this court.
In the present case the appellants Skotheim and Palmer describe the decree as having been rendered on the twenty-third day of March, 1926, and describe haec verba the particular part of the decree from which they appeal; and, in addition to this, the docket number of the case is given as No. K. 6566. It would be idle to say that a judgment so described could not be identified by the record. We have the title of the case, the title of the court, the number of the case on the docket, the date of the rendition of the decree, and that part of the decree itself from which the defendants appeal. We think the notice sufficiently identifies the judgment and there can be no possibility of the respondent being misled.
The motion to dismiss is overruled.
Motion Overruled.