Case Name: PRICE v. WARNER
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1911-10-10
Citations: 60 Or. 7
Docket Number: 
Parties: PRICE v. WARNER.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 60
Pages: 7–12

Head Matter:
On motion to dismiss decided Oct. 18, 1910.
On the merits argued September 26,
decided October 10, 1911.
PRICE v. WARNER.
[111 Pac. 49: 118 Pac. 173.]
Appeal and Error—Pilling op Printed Abstract—Stipulations.
1. Where, by stipulation of the parties, the filing of the printed abstract within 20 days after the filing of the transcript, as required by Supreme Court rule 4, 50 Or. 571 (91 Pac. viii), is dispensed with, so that appellant may file his abstract with his brief, rule 6, 50 Or. 572 (91 Pac. viii), requiring the filing of the brief within 20 days after the filing of the abstract, does not apply; and the act of appellant, acting in good faith, in filing his abstract, with his brief, 31 days after the filing of the transcript and before any question is raised as to any delay, does not justify a dismissal of the appeal, though the proper practice requires appellant to apply to the court for an order dispensing with the filing of the abstract.
Appeal and Error—Motion to Dismiss Appeal—Time to File. 2. Under Supreme Court rule 20, as amended October 15, 1909, requiring the filing of motions to dismiss appeals within 10 days after knowledge of the failure of the adverse party to comply with the rules, an appeal will not be dismissed for the failure of appellant to serve and file a brief or abstract, where the motion to dismiss was not filed until 12 days after the time for serving and filing had expired.
Bills and Notes—Presentment—Notice op Dishonor—“Mat.”
3. Section 5929, L. O. L., provides that the notice of dishonor of a note may be in writng or oral, and Section 5936, requires such notice, where the person giving and the person to receive, reside in the same place, to be sent the day following dishonor, while Section 5946 provides that delay in giving notice is excused when caused by circumstances beyond the control of the holder. Held, that the word “may" in the first section should be construed as “must,” and that the person giving the notice must give it in writing or orally, and hence the impossibility of giving oral notice does not under the last section excuse delay; notice by mail being practicable.
Decided October 18, 1910.
On Motion to Dismiss.
[Ill Pac. 49.]
From Marion: George H. Burnett, Judge.
Statement by Mr. Justice King.
On June 25, 1910, the parties to this proceeding entered into a stipulation whereby it was agreed that respondents should waive publication of the abstract required by rule 4 of this court, 50 Or. 571 (91 Pac. viii), and that appellant might publish such abstract with his first brief. Rule 6, 50 Or. 572 (91 Pac. viii) provides that within 20 days after the service of the abstract referred to in rule 4, the appellant shall serve upon the attorney for respondent, and file with the clerk, his first brief. It also provides that a failure to comply with this rule shall be deemed cause for dismissal of the appeal. Appellant filed' his brief containing the abstract on the 25th day of July, 1910, being 31 days after the filing of the transcript. Respondents move to dismiss, on the theory that the brief should have been filed within 20 days after the filing of his transcript.
Denied.
Mr. Walter E. Keyes and Mr. Samuel T. Richardson for the motion.
Mr. John H. McNary, Mr. Charles L. McNary and Mr. Walter C. Winslow, contra.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice King
delivered the opinion of the court.
By waiving the filing of a printed abstract, as required by rule 4, the parties have presented a contingency not provided for in such rule. Rule 6 requires the brief to be filed within 20 days after the filing of the abstract. Where, by stipulation, the filing of a separate abstract is dispensed with, it is manifest that rule 6 cannot apply. Since an abstract is intended for the use of the court, as well as by the attorneys, the proper practice is for appellant to apply to' the court for an order dispensing with the filing of the abstract; but as appellant manifestly acting in good faith, filed one with his brief, but 31 days after the filing of the transcript, and before any question was raised regarding the delay, the court will refuse to dismiss the appeal, notwithstanding there is a techiiical disregard of rule 4.
Again the motion to dismiss this appeal was not filed until July 26, 1910, 32 days after the filing of the transcript, and 12 days after the time for filing the abstract had expired. Rule 20, as amended October 15, 1909, requires all motions to dismiss to be filed within 10 days after the failure of an adverse party to comply with the rules shall have come to the knowledge of the moving party, and provides that a failure to file within such time shall be deemed a waiver of all defects except matters of jurisdiction. The failure of the appellant to serve a brief or abstract upon respond-ant was one which must necessarily have come to his knowledge 20 days after the transcript was filed.
Under any view, therefore, the motion to dismiss comes too late, and must be denied.
Motion to Dismiss Denied.