Case Name: LI SAI CHEUK v. LEE LUNG
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1916-03-21
Citations: 79 Or. 563
Docket Number: 
Parties: LI SAI CHEUK v. LEE LUNG.
Judges: Me. Justice Eakin not sitting.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 79
Pages: 563–573

Head Matter:
Motion to dismiss appeal submitted on briefs January 27,
denied February 9, 1915.
On the merits argued March 2,
reversed March 21, 1916.
LI SAI CHEUK v. LEE LUNG.
(146 Pac. 94; 156 Pac. 254.)
Appeal and Error — Dismissal—Defects in Abstract — Time to Move.
1. When an indorsement on the abstract of the record shows that plaintiff’s accepted service thereof August 12, 1914, thereby obtaining knowledge of any alleged failure of defendant to comply with the statutes or rules of court as to filing of an appeal, under Supreme Court Rule 23 (56 Or. 623, 117 Pac. xii), plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendant’s appeal, to escape denial, must have been made within ten days of August 12th.
Pleading — Meritorious Defense — General Denial.
2. A general denial is a complete defense, unless inconsistent with the subsequent affirmative allegations of the answer.
Partnership — Suit Between Partners Prior to Dissolution.
3. An action at law will not lie between partners upon a claim growing out of the partnership transactions until the partnership business is wound up and the accounts finally settled, since until an accounting is had it cannot be known, but that plaintiff may be liable to refund more than he claims in the particular transaction.
Partnership — Suit Against Partner by Firm’s Assignee.
4. Where a partnership assigns for collection its account against a member of the firm, the assignment not depriving the firm of a beneficial interest in the account, the assignee cannot sue the partner owing the account, under the rule that an action at law will not lie between partners upon a claim growing out of partnership transactions until the business is wound up and accounts settled.
Judgment — Judgment by Default — Vacation.
5. Defendant, against whom a default was taken when he thought that negotiations for a settlement were still pending, he continuing so to believe until proceedings upon execution were begun, when he promptly filed his motion to vacate the default, was entitled to the relief.
[As to forgetfulness as ground for opening default judgment, see note in Ann. Cas. 1914B, 589.]
From Multnomah: George N. Davis, Judge.
This is an action by Li Sai Cheuk against Lee Lung, doing business under the firm name and style of Nom King Low Co. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Respondent files motion to dismiss appeal.
Motion Denied.
Messrs. Peters & Turner, for the motion.
Messrs. Malarkey, Seabrook & Dibble, contra.
In Banc.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Moore.
This is a motion to dismiss an appeal. An action was commenced to recover money, and the defendant not having appeared or answered within the time specified, after the summons appears personally to have been served upon him, as evidenced by the return indorsed upon the process, judgment was rendered against him for the sum demanded. Soon thereafter the defendant's counsel moved to set aside the judgment and for leave to answer, supplementing the application by his own affidavit and tendering therewith an answer to be filed. The plaintiff's counsel filed a counter-affidavit, and, upon the written declarations of facts thus voluntarily made, the application was denied, from which order the defendant perfected an ap peal and filed with the clerk of this court a transcript and a printed abstract of the record August 15, 1914, and within the time limited therefor. The defendant's brief was filed in this court January 9, 1915, and five days thereafter the plaintiff's counsel moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that no bill of exceptions had been filed.
The abstract of record contains copies of all the papers filed in the trial court or tendered for that purpose, the judgment and orders made and entered in this cause, the notice of appeal, and the undertaking therefor. The transcript also contains duplicates of the judgment, orders, notice of appeal, and undertaking, which authenticated copies having been filed with our clerk within the time limited, jurisdiction of' the cause was thereby secured. Rule 23 of this court, as far as material herein, reads:
"All motions must be filed within ten days after a party or his counsel obtain knowledge of an alleged failure of the adverse party or his counsel to comply with the requirements of the statute or the rules of this court. Any neglect to file a motion within such time will be deemed a waiver of all defects, except matters of jurisdiction": 56 Or. 623 (117 Pac. xii).
Prom an indorsement noted upon the abstract on file herein, it is manifest that plaintiff's counsel accepted service of a copy thereof August 12, 1914, and thereby obtained knowledge of any alleged failure to comply with the requirements of the statute or the rules of this court.
As jurisdiction of the appeal was secured, and as the motion now interposed was not filed within the time required, the motion to dismiss the appeal should be denied, and is so ordered. Motion Denied.
Me. Justice Eakin not sitting.