Raper v. Dunn
| Decision Date | 09 February 1909 |
| Parties | RAPER v. DUNN, County Judge, et al. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Gilliam County; E.V. Littlefield, Judge.
Petition by G.W. Raper for a writ of review against Edward Dunn county judge, and others. From an order dismissing the writ the petitioner appeals. Affirmed.
W.H Wilson and D.R. Parker, for appellant.
J.E. Burdett, Dist. Atty., Jay Bowerman, and H.S Wilson, for respondents.
This is an appeal from an order of the circuit court for Gilliam county dismissing a writ of review taken for the purpose of testing the effect upon the local option law of a section of the charter of Condon, purporting to exempt that place from the operation of the general law of the state adopted through the initiative concerning the sale or disposition of intoxicating liquors in that county.
It appears that at the general election in June, 1908, pursuant to an order properly entered, a vote was taken on whether the sale of intoxicating liquors should be prohibited in Gilliam county, in which Condon is situated, resulting in a declaration for prohibition by a majority of 36 votes, pursuant to which an order was by the county court duly made declaring the result thereof, and prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors in the county except for medical purposes, etc. The validity of such order is questioned by this proceeding.
It is first maintained that plaintiff has not invoked the proper remedy, which, if tenable, makes a consideration of the other points unnecessary, and not properly entitled to determination in this proceeding. B. & C. Comp. § 595 provides: "Any party to any process or proceeding before or by an inferior court, officer, or tribunal may have the decision or determination thereof reviewed for errors therein, as in this chapter prescribed, and not otherwise. ***" The question then arises: Is the petitioner for the writ of review a party under the above provision? "A party to an action or suit is one who is directly interested in the subject-matter in issue, who has a right to make a defense, control the proceedings, or appeal from the judgment." 6 Words & Ph. p. 5203; United States v. Henderlong (C.C.) 102 F. 2, 4; Robbins v. Chicago City Ry. Co., 4 Wall. 657, 672, 18 L.Ed. 427; Fox v. West, 1 Idaho, 782. The petition for the writ discloses "that the plaintiff herein has a license authorizing him to engage in the business of retailing liquor in the city of Condon, in said county and state, and to sell at retail all kinds of liquors mentioned in the charter of the city of Condon, *** and that the plaintiff has had the said license during all the times in this complaint mentioned." But, in the absence of some interest disclosed by the return to the writ, is this sufficient for the purpose of this proceeding to indicate that the plaintiff is a party hereto? The purpose of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers v. Board of Com'rs for Benton County
...This court early held that the facts asserted to qualify the petitioner as a party must be alleged in the petition. Raper v. Dunn, 53 Or. 203, 99 P. 889 (1909), Castel v. Klamath County, 56 Or. 188, 108 P. 129 (1910). These decisions also assumed that these facts bearing on a petitioner's r......
-
Sustar v. County Court of Marion County
... ... insufficient. Fisher v. Union Co., 43 Or. 223, 72 P ... 797; Holmes v. Cole, supra; Raper v. Dunn, 53 Or ... 203, 99 P. 889; Kinney v. City of Astoria, 58 Or ... 186, 113 P. 21. If the [101 Or. 661] petition is ... ...
-
School Dist. No. 68, Yamhill County v. Hoskins
...inspection thereof, assuming the facts stated to be true, the court can say there has been error upon which to issue the writ. Raper v. Dunn, 53 Or. 203, 99 P. 889. If the petition fails to state facts sufficient to authorize the issuance of the writ, such defect is jurisdictional; and even......
-
Coos Bay Times Pub. Co. v. Coos County
...420. In such a proceeding the court will consider only such facts as are disclosed by the record presented by the return. Raper v. Dunn, 53 Or. 203, 205, 99 P. 889. In such case evidence outside of the record will not considered. Gue v. City of Eugene, 53 Or. 282, 288, 100 P. 254; Gay v. Ci......