Case Name: HUTCHINGS v. ROYAL BAKERY
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1913-04-22
Citations: 66 Or. 301
Docket Number: 
Parties: HUTCHINGS v. ROYAL BAKERY.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 66
Pages: 301–310

Head Matter:
Argued April 3,
decided April 22,
rehearing denied June 10, 1913.
Second rehearing denied September 9, 1913.
HUTCHINGS v. ROYAL BAKERY.
(131 Pac. 514: 132 Pac. 960; 134 Pac. 1033.)
Limitation of Actions — Period—Stay.
1. Where plaintiff was permitted to take a nonsuit and the defendant appealed, the time up to and including the affirmance of the nonsuit on appeal must, under Section 20, L. O. L., providing that when the commencement of an action is stayed by a statutory prohibition the time of its continuance shall not be a part of the time limited for commencement, be deducted from the time allowed for the commencement of such action, since Sections 68, 71, L. O. L., provide that the pendency of another action between the parties for the same cause shall be ground for demurrer or plea in abatement; and until the appeal from the nonsuit was disposed of such an action was pending.
Appeal and Error — Disposition of Cause — Affirmance—Effect.
2. Ordinarily, on appeal from a judgment overruling a demurrer, the judgment of affirmance is final unless the Supreme Court, in its discretion, remands the cause for 'further proceedings, which it will not do unless it appears from the record and not from evidence aliunde that conditions imperatively call for the exercise of such discretion.
From Multnomah.: Henry E. McGinn, Judge.
Statement by Mr. Justice Eakin.
This is an action by George Hutchings against the Royal Bakery and Confectionery Company, a corporation, to recover damages for personal injuries received by the plaintiff on the 3d day of May, 1909. The action was first commenced on September 27,1909. The case was put at issue and trial commenced, when plaintiff moved for a judgment of nonsuit, which was on January 10, 1910, allowed by the court. Thereafter, on January.18, 1910, plaintiff commenced a second action for the same cause, to which the defendant filed a plea in abatement, alleging that there was another action pending between the same parties and for the same cause. On April 5, 1910, the defendant ap pealed from the judgment of nonsuit in the first action, and on May 5, 1910, the court sustained the plea in abatement and dismissed the second action. On October 10,1911, the judgment of nonsuit in the first case was affirmed in the Supreme Court: Hutchings v. Royal Bakery, 60 Or. 48 (118 Pae. 185). On December 4, 1911, plaintiff commenced the present action, alleging in the complaint the above history of the former actions, to which complaint the defendant demurred, on the ground that the action was not commenced within two years after the injury complained of by plaintiff; that being the time limited by law within which an action for personal injuries must be commenced. The demurrer was overruled. The defendant declined to plead further, and a jury was called to assess the damages sustained by plaintiff, which returned a verdict in plaintiff’s favor for the sum of $6,600, and judgment being rendered for plaintiff in that amount, the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
For appellant there was a brief over the name of Wilbur, Spencer & Dibble, with an oral argument by Mr. Schuyler C. Spencer.
For respondent there was a brief over the names of Mr. P. J. Hewitt, and Johnson é Stout, with an oral argument by Mr. Charles Stout.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Eakin
delivered the opinion of the court.