Amer. Surety Co. v. Multnomah County
Decision Date | 18 May 1943 |
Citation | 138 P.2d 597,171 Or. 287 |
Parties | AMERICAN SURETY CO. OF NEW YORK <I>v.</I> MULTNOMAH COUNTY AMERICAN SURETY CO. OF NEW YORK <I>v.</I> CITY OF PORTLAND |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
See 25 R.C.L. 1331 10 C.J.S., Bills and Notes, § 326
Before BAILEY, Chief Justice, and BELT, ROSSMAN, KELLY, LUSK, BRAND and HAY, Associate Justices.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County.
Actions by the American Surety Company of New York against Multnomah County and City of Portland to recover from defendants the moneys paid by plaintiff as surety on fidelity bond of the treasurer of Marion County who applied misappropriated funds to payment of personal tax obligations to Multnomah County and the City of Portland, wherein defendants filed demurrers. From a judgment of dismissal, plaintiff appeals.
REVERSED.
Nicholas Jaureguy, of Portland (Stott & Gooding, Cake, Jaureguy & Tooze, and Herbert C. Hardy, all of Portland, on the brief) for appellant.
Frank S. Sever, Deputy District Attorney, of Portland (James R. Bain, District Attorney, of Portland, on the brief) for respondent Multnomah County.
L.E. Latourette, City Attorney, of Portland (Alexander G. Brown, Deputy City Attorney, of Portland, on the brief) for respondent City of Portland.
The plaintiff brings two separate actions, the first against Multnomah County and the second against the City of Portland, a municipal corporation. The two cases have been consolidated for the purposes of briefs and arguments, and we will dispose of them in a single opinion, noting in the course thereof such distinctions between them as may appear to be material.
1. Demurrers to the amended complaints in both cases were sustained by the trial court. The plaintiff refused to plead further, the complaints were dismissed and the plaintiff appeal...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
DeFazio v. Washington Public Power Supply System
...Two decisions of that period involved the defense of laches against suits on behalf of local governments. In Amer. Surety Co. v. Multnomah County, 171 Or. 287, 138 P.2d 597 (1943), plaintiff sued as subrogee of Marion County and defendant claimed laches. Plaintiff apparently conceded that "......
-
Kelly v. Tracy
...concurring with delay for an unreasonable time are essential elements of the defense of laches. American Surety Co. of New York v. Multnomah County, 171 Or. 287, 138 P.2d 597, 148 A.L.R. 926. We have also repeatedly held that the delay in order to amount to laches must be such as works inju......
-
First Nat. Bank v. Connolly
...for his own purposes, the bank was not liable to the surety on the clerk's bond which had paid the loss. See American Surety Co. v. Multnomah County, 171 Or. 287, 138 P. (2d) 597, decided May 17, 1943. But this case presents an entirely different question. Actually, there was no trust fund ......
-
Agri-Link Corp. v. Schmitz
...564--65, 276 P.2d 720 (1954). See also Haugen v. Gleason et al, 226 Or. 99, 107, 359 P.2d 108 (1961).8 See Amer. Surety Co. v. Multnomah County, 171 Or. 287, 327, 138 P.2d 597 (1943); Nelson v. Baker et al, 112 Or. 79, 95, 227 P. 301, 228 P. 961 (1924). See also McIver v. Norman, 187 Or. 51......