Case Name: WHITE v. GEINGER
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1914-03-17
Citations: 70 Or. 81
Docket Number: 
Parties: WHITE v. GEINGER.
Judges: Mr. Chief Justice McBride, Mr. Justice Eakin and Mr. Justice Bean concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 70
Pages: 81–82

Head Matter:
Argued March 9,
decided March 17,
rehearing denied April 7, 1914.
WHITE v. GEINGER.
(139 Pac. 572.)
New Trial—Proceedings to Procure—Time for Motion.
1. Under Section 175, L. O. L., requiring a motion for new trial to be filed within one day after the entry of judgment, or such further time as the court may allow, the Circuit Court cannot properly entertain a motion for new trial filed more than one day after the entry of judgment, without extension of time having been granted.
[As to what proceedings are inconsistent with motion for new trial so as to waive right to move, see note in Ann. Cas. 1914B, 612.]
Appeal and Error—Decisions Reviewable—Denial of New Trial.
2. No appeal lies from an order denying a new trial.
[As to what judgments and orders may be appealed from, see note in 20 Am. St. Rep. 173.]
From Jackson: Frank M. Calkins, Judge.
Department 2. Statement by Mr. Justice Burnett.
This is an action at law by H. L. White against A. , C. Geinger to recover money in which issue was joined by the defendant, and the litigation proceeded to judgment, which was rendered January 3, 1913. No error whatever is predicated concerning the proceedings up to and including the rendition of judgment. On February 27, 1913, without the time therefor having been extended, the defendant, appearing by new counsel, filed a motion for a new trial, alleging misconduct of a juryman, excessive damages, and insufficiency of the evidence. This motion was overruled May 21, 1913, and on June 7, 1913, the defendant appealed from the judgment rendered January 3d of that year, and from the order denying his motion for a new trial.
Affirmed: Rehearing Denied.
For appellant there was a brief and an oral argument by Mr. A. H. Davis.
For respondent there was a brief and an oral argument by Mr. Alfred E. Reames.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Burnett
delivered the opinion of the court.
Section 175, L. O. L., says:
"A motion to set aside a judgment and for a new trial, with the affidavits, if any, in support thereof, shall be filed within one day after the entry of the judgment sought to be set aside, or such further time as the court may allow."
In view of this statute, the Circuit Court could not properly entertain the motion filed more than one day after the trial, without extension of time having been granted: State v. McDaniel, 39 Or. 161 (65 Pac. 520).
Moreover, as held in Macartney v. Shipherd, 60 Or. 133 (117 Pac. 814, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 1257), no appeal lies from an order denying a motion for a new trial. For these reasons, the defendant has no standing in this court by virtue of his appeal, and the judgment against him must be affirmed.
Affirmed: Rehearing Denied.
Mr. Chief Justice McBride, Mr. Justice Eakin and Mr. Justice Bean concur.