Case Name: In re Estate of Charles A. Johnson, Deceased JACOB JOHNSON v. F. O. JOHNSON, et al.
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1929-02-19
Citations: 131 Or. 235
Docket Number: 
Parties: In re Estate of Charles A. Johnson, Deceased JACOB JOHNSON v. F. O. JOHNSON, et al.
Judges: McBride and Bean, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 131
Pages: 235–242

Head Matter:
Submitted on motion to dismiss appeal December 21, 1928;
motion denied February 19;
argued on the merits October 8, 1929; affirmed December 3, 1929
In re Estate of Charles A. Johnson, Deceased JACOB JOHNSON v. F. O. JOHNSON, et al.
(274 Pac. 918; 282 Pac. 1082)
For the motion Mr. C. M. Inman.
Contra, Mr. Guy 0. Smith and Mr. Walter C. Winslow.

Opinion:
Respondents move to dismiss this appeal for the reason that the appellant has failed to file a transcript of the decree appealed from within the time allowed.
Respondents in their brief state that "no trans-script of the decree appealed from, as shown by the notice of appeal, has been filed in this appellate court, but the transcript on appeal contains only a transcript of a nonappealable order dismissing respondent's motion in the circuit court to dismiss the appeal to that court."
The copy of decree, contained in the transcript, shows, in substance that a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal to the circuit court was argued by counsel and the court took the same under advisement "and now being fully- advised, it is ordered and decreed by the court that the respondents' motion to dismiss the appeal herein be and it is hereby dismissed."
The decree of the court that "it is hereby dismissed" undoubtedly refers to the appeal from the county court to the circuit court. Evidently by a clerical error the word "allowed" is omitted after the words "herein be."
This error should unquestionably have been corrected in the circuit court, in order to save time and controversy, but we must construe the record as we find it. The only thing that appellant could safely do in the matter was to appeal from the decree. If such a decree was then actually rendered, the entry thereof could be made nunc pro tunc and cause confusion.
The motion to dismiss the appeal to this court is denied;
Motion Denied.