13 Or. 466 | Or. | 1886
The respondent commenced an action against the appellant, in the Justice’s Court for Dalles Precinct, Wasco County, state of Oregon, to recover the possession of a span of horses and harness valued at $210. Both parties claimed the property, and an issue was duly made as to its ownership. The case was tried in the Justice’s Court by a jury, who returned a verdict .in favor of the defendant in the action, appellant herein, upon which judgment was entered, and the respondent attempted to appeal therefrom to the said Circuit Court. He caused a notice of appeal to be served upon the appellant within the time allowed by the statute for serving such notice, but failed to file any undertaking until after the expiration of such time. He then went before the justice and made a showing that his failure to file the undertaking within such time occurred through a mistake, and applied to the justice for leave to file it then. The justice, being satisfied with the showing, permitted
After the transcript was filed in the Circuit Court, the appellant herein filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, upon the ground that the showing before the justice was not sufficient to excuse the mistake, and that the justice had no authority in any event to allow it to be filed after the expiration of the term fixed by the statute. The Circuit Court overruled the motion, and proceeded to try the case anew. It was tried by a jury in the latter court, who returned a verdict in favor of the respondent herein, upon which the judgment appealed from was entered.
The only question presented for the consideration of this court is as to the correctness of the Circuit Court’s ruling upon the motion to dismiss the appeal, which turns wholly upon the question of the power of the justice to permit the filing of the undertaking after the time specified in the statute for doing it had elapsed. This, court is not inclined in any case to deprive a party of an appeal, where he has made a mistake, if it has authority to do so. We have attempted to discourage any technical practice in reference to dismissing appeals, when it is evident that the party has acted in good faith in the matter. But however liberally disposed the court may be in such matters, it cannot override provisions of statutes. Chapter 9 of the Justice’s Code gives the right and regulates the mode of appeal from judgments given in a Justice’s Court. Section 68 of that Code provides that the appeal is taken to the Circuit Court of the county wherein the judgment is given, and may be taken within thirty days from the date of the entry thereof; and section 69 thereof provides how it is taken, viz., by serving a notice thereof on the adverse party, and filing the original, with proof of service indorsed
It is conceded by both parties in the case that the right to appeal in such cases is only a statutory right, and that there is no provision in the Justice’s Code for allowing an undertaking to be filed after the expiration of the thirty days in which the appeal is allowed to be taken. But the respondent’s counsel contends that subdivision 4 of section 527 of the Civil Code applies to cases of appeal from judgments of Justices’ Courts. That subdivision is as follows: “When a party in good faith gives ' due notice of an appeal from a judgment or decree, and thereafter omits, through mistake, to do any other act, including the filing of an undertaking, or any other act, as provided in this section, necessary to perfect the appeal or to stay proceedings, the court, or judge thereof, or the appellate court, may permit an amendment or performance of such act on such terms as may be just.” And the whole question turns upon its applicability to Justice’s Court proceedings in case of appeal. In the case of Herman v. Kyle, decided at the present term of this court, it was held that subdivision 2 of said section 527, Civil Code, did not apply to appeals from Justices’ Courts. We concluded' in that case, though no opinion was written, that the Justice’s Code was complete in itself upon the subject of appeal. There, the Circuit Court from which the appeal was taken had decided that the appellant must, within ten days after the service of the notice 'of appeal, file his undertaking; but this court held that it was sufficient if he did it at any time after service of the notice and within the thirty days after the rendition of the judgment, and reversed the decision of the Circuit Court. I can discover no reason for changing the view the court then entertained upon the subject.
The language used in said section 527, and the various
The clause in subdivision 4 of section 527, authorizing the filing of an undertaking where it has been omitted, was not in the original section as adopted in 1864. It was inserted by an amendment passed in 1870. Under the original section it was held by this court, in Canyon Road Co. v. Lawrence, 3 Or. 519, that where no undertak