Bailey v. Malheur & H.L. Irr. Co.
| Decision Date | 10 July 1899 |
| Parties | BAILEY v. MALHEUR & H.L. IRR. CO. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Harney county; Morton D. Clifford, Judge.
Bill for an injunction by John T. Bailey against the Malheur & Harney Lake Irrigation Company. From a decree granting the injunction, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
The complaint herein states the following cause of suit: That at all times mentioned the defendant was and is a corporation duly and legally incorporated under the laws of the state of Oregon; that plaintiff is the owner of certain real property situate in sections 26 and 27, township 26 S., range 31 E. of the Willamette meridian, in Malheur county, Or.; that Malheur Lake is a non-navigable body of water situate in said county and has existed substantially as it now is from time immemorial; that there is a depression in the surface of the earth, extending from said lake about six miles in a westerly direction; that plaintiff's land is directly connected therewith, and the greater part of it is almost level, having a slight incline towards and into said depression; that during the spring and summer of each year the water of said lake rises and flows into and through said depression completely covering the same and a part of the said land bordering thereon and adjacent thereto; that the water of said lake will continue to flow into and through said depression and upon plaintiff's said land, unless prevented by the interference and unlawful acts of the defendant, as herein alleged; that said land is valuable for raising natural grasses, of which large quantities are annually produced, otherwise it is of but little value; that abundant irrigation is necessary for the production of said natural grasses, as otherwise no crop thereof can be produced; that there is no means of irrigating said land, or any part thereof, except by the natural annual overflow of said lake; that the slope of said land towards and into said depression is so gradual that a fall of a few inches in the water of said lake will wholly deprive said land of irrigation; that defendant is now engaged in the construction of a large ditch or canal, to be connected with and leading out of said lake, by means of which it intends and now threatens to and will take a large quantity of water for said lake, and thereby convey the same entirely away from the land of this plaintiff, and will continue such taking from year to year, whereby the plaintiff will be wholly deprived of the use thereof for the purpose of irrigation, to his great and irreparable damage and injury. The prayer is that the defendant be enjoined from taking and conducting the water out of said Malheur Lake by means of said ditch or canal, or otherwise, and for the costs and disbursements of the suit. The suit was commenced in Harney county, and the defendant served with the summons at La Grande, in Union county, Or by the delivery to C.S. Dunphey, its president, in person, of a copy thereof, together with a certified copy of the complaint. The defendant appeared specially by F.S. Ivanhoe, its attorney, and moved to quash the return of service; which motion being overruled, and the defendant failing and refusing to further appear or plead to the complaint, a decree was entered against it, in accordance with the prayer of the complaint.
F.S. Ivanhoe, for appellant.
L.R. Webster, for respondent.
WOLVERTON, C.J. (after stating the facts).
The suit having been commenced in the county where the cause thereof arose, and service of the summons made on the president of the defendant company in the county where its principal office is located, it is now questioned whether such service out of the former county is authorized. But, if it should be held that such authority exists, then it is insisted that the return of service is insufficient, in that it does not show that the defendant company, or the president upon whom said service was attempted to be made, or other officer or agent thereof, did not reside or have an office in the county in which the suit was commenced, or that diligent search had been made in said county for such an officer or agent without avail. In a local action or suit the defendant may always be served in the county in which he resides notwithstanding the action or suit may have been instituted in another county. Sections 54, 55, Hill's Ann.Laws Or prescribe the manner of the service of a summons; and, as it concerns private corporations, the latter section directs that it shall be served by delivering a copy...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. State of Oregon
...Id., 185 U.S. 47, 53, 22 S.Ct. 563, 46 L.Ed. 800; Cawlfield v. Smyth, 69 Or. 41, 42, 138 P. 227 (1914); Bailey v. Malheur & H. L. Irrigation Co., 36 Or. 54, 55, 57 P. 910 (1899); In re Rights to Use of Waters of Silvies River, 115 Or. 27, 34, 237 P. 322 (1925). II. Right of the United State......
-
Mutzig v. Hope
...Clackamas county [where the suit was brought] service could have been made in this case in Multnomah county." And see Bailey v. Malheur Irrigation Co., 36 Or. 54, 57 P. 910. We now approach the second question. Assuming that the defendant was a resident of Oregon, but not of Multnomah count......
-
Rajneesh Foundation Intern. v. McGreer
...that a pleading must state facts showing an entitlement to relief before a default judgment can be granted. See Bailey v. Malheur Irrigation Co., 36 Or. 54, 60, 57 P. 910 (1899); Carlson v. Bankers Discount Corp., 107 Or. 686, 215 P. 986 Defendant cites two Oregon cases for the proposition ......
-
Semler v. Cook-Waite Laboratories
...State ex rel. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Co. v. Updegraff, 172 Or. 246, 141 [203 Or. 152] P.2d 251; Bailey v. Malheur & H. L. Irrigation Co., 36 Or. 54, 57 P. 910. Accordingly, although a foreign corporation which complies with ORS 57.690 to 57.706 and appoints a local agent may be s......