From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dressler v. Isaacs

Oregon Supreme Court
Mar 26, 1958
323 P.2d 64 (Or. 1958)

Opinion

Submitted March 18, 1958

Motion to strike abstract and brief denied; motion to affirm allowed March 26, 1958

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County, ALFRED T. GOODWIN, Judge.

On respondents' motions to strike appellant's abstract of record and brief from the files and to affirm.

Charles W. Reames, Medford, for the motions.

Jesse F. Dressler, in propria persona, contra.


IN BANC


MOTION TO STRIKE ABSTRACT AND BRIEF DENIED; MOTION TO AFFIRM ALLOWED.


The respondents, defendants in the court below, have moved for an affirmance of the judgment on the ground that no bill of exceptions has been brought to this court, and the pleadings support the judgment.

The action is for malicious prosecution, and the appeal is from a judgment for the defendants (except the defendant, Iris Smith, who was granted a judgment of involuntary nonsuit) based on the verdict of a jury. Plaintiff has filed a brief in which he complains of the court's denial of a motion for a new trial, said to be supported by an affidavit charging misconduct of a witness and certain jurors, the overruling of plaintiff's objection to certain testimony, and the failure of the court to admonish the jury before the taking of two recesses during the trial. The pleadings are not challenged.

Since there is no bill of exceptions there is nothing before the court except the question of sufficiency of the pleadings to support the judgment. Flaherty v. Bookhultz et al., 207 Or. 462, 464, 291 P.2d 221, 297 P.2d 856; Sheridan v. Pac. Tel. and Tel. Co., 200 Or. 636, 267 P.2d 1104; Nicholson v. Jones, 194 Or. 406, 408, 242 P.2d 582; La Grande Air Service v. Tyler et al, 193 Or. 329, 237 P.2d 503.

The pleadings are sufficient and the judgment is, therefore, affirmed.

The respondents have also filed a motion to strike the appellant's abstract and brief from the files for noncompliance with our rules. The abstract and brief clearly do not comply with our rules, but, in view of the disposition we have made of the motion to affirm the judgment, this motion will be denied.


Summaries of

Dressler v. Isaacs

Oregon Supreme Court
Mar 26, 1958
323 P.2d 64 (Or. 1958)
Case details for

Dressler v. Isaacs

Case Details

Full title:DRESSLER v. ISAACS ET AL

Court:Oregon Supreme Court

Date published: Mar 26, 1958

Citations

323 P.2d 64 (Or. 1958)
323 P.2d 64

Citing Cases

Steenson v. Robinson

In the absence of a transcript, or designated portions of the record brought up pursuant to ORS 19.074, there…

Estate of Coon v. Humble

In the absence of a transcript of the evidence, this case presents no issue except the sufficiency of the…