Oregon Supreme Court, 1923

Moss v. Woodcock

Oregon Supreme Court · Decided December 11, 1923 · Mobride

109 Or. 597; 220 P. 1017; 1923 Ore. LEXIS 130

Cases that cite this one

21 later published cases cite this decision. The 20 that cite it most often are listed here.

Berliner & Schnitzer v. Roberts (Or. 1960)
Portland v. Hirsch-Weis Mfg. Co. (Or. 1927)
Outcault Advertising Co. v. Jones (Or. 1925)
Ochoa v. Weisensee Ranch, Inc. (Or. Ct. App. 1988)
Russell v. Pacific Maritime Ass'n (Or. Ct. App. 1972)
Standard Lumber Co. v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1960)
M & M Woodworking Co. v. State Tax Commission (Or. 1959)
Walleri v. Federal Home Loan Bank (Or. Ct. App. 1992)
Trueblood v. HEALTH DIV., DEPT. OF HUMAN RES. (Or. Ct. App. 1977)
Brooks v. Dierker (Or. Ct. App. 1975)
Bank of California, N. A. v. McQuaid (9th Cir. 1972)
Gibbs v. Multnomah County (Or. 1959)
In re Estate of TA Stoll (Or. 1950)
Smith v. Little (Or. 1950)
Brown v. Irwin (Or. 1949)
Hoffart v. Lindquist & Paget Mortgage Co. (Or. 1948)
Investors Syndicate v. Smith (9th Cir. 1939)
Hartley v. Utah Const. Co. (9th Cir. 1939)
Lowe v. Brown (Or. 1925)
Libby v. Southern Pacific Co. (Or. 1923)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

MoBRIDE, C. J.

This was a civil action in which the amount in controversy was less than $250. The appeal in this case was perfected and the transcript filed in this court on the thirteenth day of July, 1923, within the time as extended by orders of the Circuit Court.

Chapter 153, Laws of Oregon of 1923, providing that no appeal “shall be taken or allowed” where the amount in controversy is less than $250, went into effect on May 23, 1923. A motion to dismiss the appeal for this and other reasons was filed October 4, 1923, and was overruled without a written *598opinion. Since that date we have had occasion, in Libby v. Southern Pac. Co., ante, p. 449 (219 Pac. 604), and upon a motion- for rehearing in the same case in which an opinion was filed on this date, critically to examine and consider the effect of the statute of 1923 above cited, and have arrived at the conclusion that it applies as well to pending cases as to those in which appeals had not been perfected, and that we are without jurisdiction to hear this appeal.

In view of the fact that Lake County is remote from the capital we feel that it would be involving counsel and the parties in needless expense and trouble to allow this appeal to stand for final hearing, when at the very threshold of such hearing we would be obliged to decline jurisdiction of the appeal, and it is therefore dismissed.

Appeal Dismissed. Rehearing Denied.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.