
    Submitted August 31,
    reversed and remanded with instructions September 18, 1978
    RIPNITZ et al, Respondents, v. JONES et ux, Appellants.
    
    (No. 24537, CA 11028)
    584 P2d 315
    Kenneth E. Shetterly and Hayter, Shetterly, Noble and Weiser, Dallas, filed the brief for appellants.
    William M. Homer and McArthur, Homer & Jennings, Monmouth, waived appearance for respondents.
    Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Gillette and Roberts, Judges.
    SCHWAB, C. J.
   SCHWAB, C. J.

In this equity proceeding defendant appeals from a decree dismissing plaintiffs suit contending the court had no power to order dismissal "without prejudice.” At trial plaintiffs presented their case-in-chief and rested. The defendants rested without introducing any testimony and moved for a decree of dismissal on the ground that plaintiffs had failed to prove they were entitled to any relief. The court found that the motion was well taken and that it should be allowed.

The dismissal of a suit on motion of a defendant after plaintiff has rested constitutes a bar to any subsequent suit for the same cause. ORS 18.220; Kelley et ux. v. Mallory et ux., 202 Or 690, 277 P2d 767 (1954).

Reversed and remanded for entry of a decree dismissing with prejudice.  