Case Name: JOHNSON et al. v. BERNS et al.
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1924-04-01
Citations: 111 Or. 165
Docket Number: 
Parties: JOHNSON et al. v. BERNS et al.
Judges: McBride, C. J., and Coshow, J., concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 111
Pages: 165–178

Head Matter:
On motion to dismiss. Motion denied September 19, 1922,
argued March 4,
reversed and decree entered April 1,
motion for modification of decree denied May 13,
rehearing denied May 13, 1924.
JOHNSON et al. v. BERNS et al.
(209 Pac. 94; 224 Pac. 624; 225 Pac. 727.)
Appeal and Error — Supreme Court Acquires Jurisdiction to Hear Appeal, Though Transcript is Incomplete.
1. Under Section 555, Or. L., relating to omissions in the transcript, the Supreme Court acquires jurisdiction of an appeal as against motion to dismiss, though the transcript does not contain certified copies of records offered at trial by respondents, appellants contending that it was incumbent upon respondents to supply the copies, and where appellants asked for leave to supply the copies, if it was concluded that they should furnish t'henq leave will be so granted^
ON THE MERITS.
Vendor and Purchaser — Vendor When Time the Essence of the Contract must Act Promptly on It.
2. If the vendor in a contract for the sale of land, for whose benefit a stipulation about time being the essence of the contract is made, would insist upon it, he must act promptly, and any indulgence on his part will, by operation of law, bring into existence a new contract from which the element of time is absent, and in which form it will remain until, by reasonable notice to purchaser that it will thereafter be insisted upon, the agreement between the parties is restored to its original form.
Vendor and Purchaser — Purchaser Entitled to Treat Vendor’s Acts in Bringing Ejectment and Replevin as Rescission of Contract.
3. Under a contract for the sale of a farm and personal property containing a clause making time of the essence, where vendor gave purchaser no notice that such clause would be insisted upon, after continuing to recognize the contract following default in payment of interest money and a mortgage by purchaser, his acts in bringing ejectment for the land and replevin for the personal property was such a breach of the contract as entitled purchaser to treat the contract as rescinded.
Vendor and Purchaser — Purchaser Entitled on Vendor’s Rescission to Treat Expenditures Made Thereunder as an Equitable Lien on the Land.
4. Under a contract for the sale of a farm and personal property upon which purchaser had paid a part of the purchase price
Time as essence of contract between vendor and purchaser, see note in 104 Am. St. Rep. 266.
See 25 Cyc., p. 675; 39 Cyc., pp. 1340, 1345, 1389, 1609, 1611, 2032, 2037.
and had made other expenditures, he was equitable owner of the land to the extent of the money expended under the contract, and ' had an equitable lien therefor upon rescission by vendor.
ON PETITION FOE REHEARING.
Vendor and Purchaser — Clause Making Time of Essence Binding upon Both Parties — Delay may be Waived.
5. Clause making time of the essence of contract is binding upon both parties, and is not to be employed at mere discretion of vendor, and his inaction amounts to waiver of provision.
Liens — Lost by Surrender of Chattel in Obedience to Replevin.
6. In absence of statutory regulations a lien on chattels depends upon retaining possession, and is destroyed by surrender in obedience to replevin.
From Tillamook: George R. Bagley, Judge.
In Banc.
Motion to Dismiss Denied.
Mr. S. S. Johnson and Mr. Webster Holmes, for the motion.
Messrs. Botts & Winslow, contra.

Opinion:
HARRIS, J.
The plaintiffs prosecuted against the defendants a suit which ended in the Circuit Court in a decree of dismissal. The plaintiffs appealed and filed in this court certified copies of the notice of appeal, undertaking on appeal and decree, together with 274 typewritten pages of transcribed testimony certified to be a complete transcript of the notes taken by the official court reporter. Attached to the transcript are a number of exhibits. The certificate of the county clerk declares that
"hereto attached are all of the exhibits introduced in the above cause, that said exhibits are the originals introduced, except where certain records were introduced in evidence with leave to substitute a certified copy, and that hereto attached are all of the certified copies of said records, substituted by the respective parties."
The plaintiffs have also filed a printed abstract.
During the trial the defendants offered in evidence certain pages of county deed records containing the record of a certain contract and of two designated deeds, and the defendants also introduced in evidence the pleadings in two other lawsuits, with leave to substitute certified copies of the records and original papers so introduced.
The plaintiffs wrote to one of the attorneys for the defendants requesting that the defendants cause certified copies to be prepared and filed so that they could be included in the transcript when filed in this court; but the defendants replied to the effect that they did not believe it to be their duty to supply the certified copies. The plaintiffs then filed their transcript and printed abstract, and thereupon the defendants moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that because of the absence of copies of the contract, two deeds and pleadings the court was without jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
The plaintiffs, although insisting that it was incumbent upon the defendants to supply certified copies of the records offered by the defendants, requested that they be permitted to supply the certified copies if the court concluded that the defendants were not obliged to furnish them. Clearly the plaintiffs have filed a record sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the appellate court, although it is true that this court might not, because of the absence of some evidence, be enabled to do more than to pass upon the sufficiency of the pleadings. It was the duty of the plaintiffs to supply certified copies of the deed records and of the pleadings in the other two lawsuits just as it was their duty to cause the testimony of the witnesses for the defendants to he transcribed. If the plaintiffs prevail on the appeal they can include in their cost bill, if allowed costs and disbursements, the expense of the certified copies. The plaintiffs have appealed in good faith and their motion for permission to supply certified copies is allowed, while the motion -of the defendants for a dismissal is denied: See Section 555, Or. L. Motion Denied.
For appellants there was a brief over the name of Messrs. Botts & Winslow, with an oral argument by Mr. George P. Winslow.
For respondents there was a brief over the names of Mr. S. S. Johnson and Mr. Webster Holmes, with an oral argument by Mr. Johnson.