Blyth & Co. v. City of Portland
Decision Date | 13 April 1955 |
Citation | 204 Or. 153,282 P.2d 363 |
Parties | BLYTH & CO., Inc., a Delaware corporation, Respondent, v. The CITY OF PORTLAND, Oregon, a municipal corporation, and the City of Portland, acting by and through the Commission of Public Docks, Appellants. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Robert A. Leedy, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Barzee, Leedy, Keane & Erwin, Portland.
Thomas J. White, Portland, argued the cause for appellants. On the brief were Alexander G. Brown, City Atty., Portland, Marian C. Rushing, Chief Deputy City Atty., Portland, White, Sutherland & Parks, and Thomas J. White and Alex L. Parks, for the City of Portland, acting by and through the Commission of Public Docks.
The question for decision on this appeal is whether Marshall N. Dana, a recent appointee to the Commission of Public Docks of the City of Portland, is disqualified to hold that office because he is not a resident of the City of Portland.
The question was submitted to the Circuit Court without action or suit pursuant to the provisions of ORS 27.030. The court was of the opinion that under the charter of the City no one but a resident of the City is qualified to serve as a dock commissioner, and entered a decree holding Mr. Dana disqualified. The City and the Dock Commission have appealed.
Blyth & Co., Inc., the plaintiff, is a Delaware corporation which is qualified to do business in the State of Oregon and maintains a place of business in the City of Portland. It is a taxpayer in the City of Portland, in Multnomah County, and in the State of Oregon. Its principal business is the purchase and sale of securities, including municipal bonds, both on its own account and for others. The Commission of Public Docks is a legally constituted agency in the City of Portland first created by the charter of the City in 1903. The Commission exercises broad powers over the harbor front of the City, including the power to purchase or acquire by condemnation lands for public-owned dock purposes and the like and to issue in the name of the City revenue and general obligation bonds. See Charter of the City of Portland §§ 6-101 to 6-106. The particular interest of Blyth & Co. in the question of Mr. Dana's qualifications to serve as a member of the Dock Commission derives from the fact that it is a consistent bidder for bonds issued by the Dock Commission and a holder of such bonds in large amounts. The standing of Blyth & Co. to raise the question is conceded.
The Charter amendment creating the Dock Commission contained the following provisions respecting the selection, qualifications and tenure of the commissioners:
(§ 6-102)
We are of the opinion that the residence requirements in the foregoing section were not limited to the first appointees to the Commission, but were intended to have a continuing application. Any other interpretation would be highly unreasonable. If, therefore, the residence qualifications set forth in § 6-102 are still in effect, Mr. Dana is clearly disqualified because it is conceded that he is not a resident of the City but resides some ten miles beyond the City limits in Clackamas County. The appellants contend, however, that these provisions have been repealed by a charter amendment adopted in 1954 prior to Mr. Dana's appointment.
Section 2-505 of the City's Charter formerly provided:
At the general municipal election held on November 2, 1954, the people adopted a charter amendment relating to residence qualifications of officers and employees of the City of Portland which became § 2-511 of the Charter, and at the same time amended § 2-505. These sections read as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Migis v. Autozone, Inc., A150540
...; see also Murphy v. Nilsen , 19 Or.App. 292, 298, 527 P.2d 736 (1974) (citing ORS 174.010 and quoting Blyth & Co., Inc. v. City of Portland , 204 Or. 153, 159, 282 P.2d 363 (1955) ("Courts do not cast aside language of a law as meaningless if it is reasonably possible to give it effect. * ......
-
Beaver v. Pelett
...effect to all." See 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco County Court, 299 Or. 344, 703 P.2d 207 (1985); Blyth & Co., Inc., v. City of Portland, 204 Or. 153, 159, 282 P.2d 363, 366 (1955). There is precedent for interpreting the phrase "on account of" to refer to a party who suffered a loss as a......
-
Thom v. Bailey
...'cast aside language of a law as meaningless if it is reasonably possible to give it effect,' citing Blyth & Co., Inc. v. City of Portland, 204 Or. 153, 159, 282 P.2d 363, 366 (1955). After examining the entire statute and its legislative history, in the light of the statutory restrictions ......
-
McKean-Coffman v. Employment Div.
...the construction of a statute the intention of the legislature is to be pursued if possible * * *." See Blyth & Co. Inc. v. City of Portland, 204 Or. 153, 159, 282 P.2d 363 (1955) (courts must endeavor to ascertain and give effect to the legislature's purpose). In construing a statute, cour......