Case Name: UNITED STATES NAT. BANK v. SHEFLER
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1915-10-19
Citations: 77 Or. 579
Docket Number: 
Parties: UNITED STATES NAT. BANK v. SHEFLER.
Judges: Mr. Justice Ramsey dissents.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 77
Pages: 579–586

Head Matter:
Motion to dismiss appeal denied December 8, 1914.
On the merits, submitted on briefs without argument October 19, 1915.
UNITED STATES NAT. BANK v. SHEFLER.
(143 Pac. 51; 152 Pac. 234.)
ON MOTION TO DISMISS.
Appeal and Error — Notice—Service—“Adverse Parties.”
1. Parties who were debtors on a note and against whom a personal judgment was rendered for the amount thereof were not “adverse parties” upon whom a notice must be served of an appeal from such judgment.
Time — Notice of Appeal — Time for Filing — Excluding First or Last Day.
2. Under Section 550, L. O. L., as amended by Laws of 1913, page 617, requiring notice of appeal to be filed within 60 days from the entry of the decree, a notice of appeal from a decree rendered on April 30th, which was filed on June 30-th, was filed in time, since the first day, which is to be excluded from the computation under Seetion 531, was not the day on which the decree was rendered, but the day following.
ON THE MERITS.
Appeal and Error — Omissions from Record — Scope of Review.
3. Where the evidence received at the trial does not accompany the transcript, the only question to be considered is whether the pleadings are sufficient to uphold the decree.
Appeal and Error — Defect of Parties — Waiver.
4. In a suit' to foreclose mortgages which had been assigned by the mortgagee, in which defendants pleaded a cancellation of the conveyance by the mortgagee constituting the consideration for one of the mortgages, it could not be objected that the mortgagee was not a party, where no litigant objected to the defect of parties by the filing of a demurrer, or affirmatively pleaded the necessity or propriety of making him a party; his presence not being indispensable.
From Marion: William Galloway, Judge.
This is a suit by the United States National Bank, of Salem, Oregon, a corporation, against George O. Shefler and Belle M. Shefler, his wife, Ladd & Bnsh, a corporation, J. H. Cummings, S. C. Spencer, Beneta R. Stroud, F. J. Eldriedge and Swastika Farms Company, a corporation. From. a decree in favor of plaintiff, the defendants, F. J. Eldriedge and Swas tika Farms Company, appeal. Respondent moves to dismiss the appeal.
Motion Denied.
For appellants there was a brief over the names of Messrs. Conley & De Neffe and Dan R. Murphy.
For respondents there were briefs by Mr. Henry St. Rayner, Messrs. Wilbur & Spencer and Mr. George J. Cameron, Mr. George C. Bingham and Messrs. Carson & Brown.
In Banc.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Eakin
delivered the opinion of the court.
The ground on which this motion is based is that the appeal was not taken within 60 days from the date of the decree, and that service was not made on the Sheflers. Laws of 1913, page 617, amending Section 550, L. O. L., provides, among other things:
"An appeal shall be taken by serving and filing the notice of appeal, within 60 days from the entry of the decree. "
The decree in this case was rendered April 30, 1914. The notice of appeal was served by mail. In the return of service it does not appear when or where the service was made, except that the affidavit of mailing was sworn to June 29,1914. Geo. C. Shefler and Belle M. Shefler were not served although they were the debtors on said note, against whom a personal judgment for $75,000 was rendered in the decree appealed from. The notice, with the return indorsed thereon, was filed June 30th.
It is suggested that the Sheflers should have been served with the notice, but they are not adverse parties. There is no modification of the decree that can be made on the appeal which would affect them adversely, and, as the decree -is adverse to them, they have no interest in upholding it.
The service of notice having been filed June 30th, it fell within the required time, as it is just 60 days from May 1st to June 30th. In the computation of time within which an act shall be done, the statute provides that the first day shall be excluded and the day on which the act is done shall be included in the count: Section 531, L. O. L. The judgment was rendered April 30th, and within 60 days thereafter the notice of appeal must have been filed. The only question involved is the computation of the time, whether the day on which the judgment was rendered, April 30th, only shall be excluded, or the next day, May 1st, shall be the day excluded. Judge E. S. Bean, in the case of Boothe v. Scriber, 48 Or. 561 (87 Pac. 887, 90 Pac. 1002), held, in computing the time for filing the transcript, that the respondent had all day the fifth day after service of the undertaking in which to except to the sufficiency of the sureties, and that the fifth day is not the day to be excluded from the count of 30 days in which to file the transcript, but the day after shall be the day excluded from the count. The decision in that case has been followed in several cases, such as Pringle Falls Power Co. v. Patterson, 65 Or. 474 (128 Pac. 820, 132 Pac. 527), which is a similar case. And in 38 Cyc. 318, where this question is fully discussed, he finally concludes that in most jurisdictions, as a day is an indivisible point of time, the act and the day on which the act is done are coextensive, and that the day on which the act is done will not be the first day to be excluded from the count. In the case of Vincent v. First Nat. Bank of Newberg, 76 Or. 579 (143 Pac. 1100), where the same question as the one here was involved, Chief Justice McBride followed the rule laid down in the Boothe Case, which we will follow as the safer rule.
The motion to dismiss is denied.
Motion Denied.
Mr. Justice Ramsey dissents.