Case Name: GERTRUDE M. STARK v. SAM W. STARK
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1929-03-26
Citations: 128 Or. 683
Docket Number: 
Parties: GERTRUDE M. STARK v. SAM W. STARK.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 128
Pages: 683–684

Head Matter:
Submitted on motion to reconsider motion to dismiss appeal March 19,
motion allowed March 26, 1929.
GERTRUDE M. STARK v. SAM W. STARK.
(275 Pac. 692.)
For the motion, Mr, Eugene H. Dowling and Mr. L. E. Schmitt.
Contra, Mr. James W. Crmvford and Mr. W. C. Campbell.

Opinion:
COSHOW, C. J.
1. This suit is before the court on a motion to dismiss the appeal. It is a contested divorce suit. A decree was granted plaintiff. The State of Oregon acting through the district attorney's office, Multnomah County, appealed. The decree of divorce was rendered and entered September 25, 1928. November 15, 1928, notice of appeal from the decree was given by the district attorney through J. L. Hammersly, deputy. The notice of appeal was served on both parties to the suit. Defendant has not appealed. December 15, 1928, an order was entered in the Circuit Court granting to the state unto and including January 10, 1929, within which time to file a transcript. The transcript was filed herein January 5, 1929. The state has not appeared any further, nor has it asked for additional time in which to further appear. The state has, therefore, abandoned its appeal: Rule 16, 123- Or. 687, Laws 1927, chap. 316; Crumbley v. Crumbley, 94 Or. 617 (186 Pac. 423).
2. The decree was in favor of plaintiff and against the defendant. Defendant not having appealed is conclusively presumed to be satisfied with the decree: Davis v. Davis, 123 Or. 667 (263 Pac. 914); Adams v. Kennard, 122 Or. 84, 96 (222 Pac. 1092, 227 Pac. 738, 253 Pac. 1048); Ontario Advancement Co. v. Stevens, 113 Or. 564, 568 (231 Pac. 127); Spitzer v. "Annette Rolph" et al., 110 Or. 461, 464 (218 Pac. 748, 223 Pac. 253); Crumbley v. Crumbley, above. Defendant now seeks permission to file a typewritten brief and styles himself appellant. By virtue of the authorities above cited defendant has no standing in this court at all.
The motion to dismiss the appeal is allowed.