Court Opinion

ID: 9629914
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:52:32.279405+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:26.856560
License: Public Domain

BEYSON, J.,
dissenting.
The majority opinion would not require a party that interposes both an equitable and a law defense to appeal from the final decree of the court in the equity proceeding. OES 16.460 (2) was last amended in 1917.
In the case at bar, the defendant did not appeal from the decree of July 8, 1969, ordering that the defense be dismissed. The action at law on the disputed note came on for trial on July 15, 1970, and the defendant again attempted to pursue his equitable defense in the law action, and a verdict for plaintiff was directed by the court, and judgment on the law action was entered on July 19, 1970.
Defendant purported to appeal from both the judgment of January 19, 1970, and the findings and decree entered in the trial of the equitable defense on *243July 8,1969. Defendant’s notice of appeal read as follows:
*
“Notice is hereby given * * * that defendant, Ted McKenzie, does hereby appeal from the judgment in the above entitled action, dated January 19,1970, and entered of record on January 21,1970, in Court Book of Records Volume 6, page 92.”
In Pac. Gen. Contrs. v. Slate Const. Co., 196 Or 608, 618, 251 P2d 454 (1952), Justice Lusk writing, it is stated:
“* * * Even though the circuit court had entered a decree dismissing the equitable defense this court would not have reviewed such decree in the absence of an appeal from it. This is the law as established in the carefully considered opinion of Mr. Justice Harris in Gellert v. Bank of California, National Association, 107 Or 162, 214 P 377. It was there said, after a full review of the points of difference, as well as of likeness, between the practice before 1917, when the amendment was adopted which permits equitable defenses to actions at law (now § 9-102 OCLA), and the practice under the new procedure:
“ ‘Now, as before the amendment of 1917, a party to secure a review of the decree, must appeal from it, and to secure a review of the judgment must likewise appeal from it; for an appeal from one will not operate as an appeal from the other, and an appeal from the judgment will not permit a review of the decree.’ ”
See also Belcher v. Pentecostal Church et al, 216 Or 200, 202, 338 P2d 100 (1959); Obermeier v. Mortgage Co. Holland-America, 123 Or 469, 259 P 1064 (1927); Gellert v. Bank of California Nat. Assn., 107 Or 162, 187, 214 P 377 (1923); Blakely v. Schulz, 257 Or 527, 480 P2d 428 (1971); Ins. Co. of N. America v. Brehm, 257 Or 385, 478 P2d 387, 388 (1971).
*244Under the majority opinion a defendant interposing both an equitable and a law defense could either appeal from the final decree of the court in equity or wait and appeal from both the decree and judgment after judgment in the law action. In Oregon, it has always been the practice, if error is contended, to appeal from a final decree of the trial court that disposes of an equitable defense to a law action. I see no reason to change that practice.
For the above reasons, I would dissent.
Howell, J., joins in this dissent.