School Dist. No. 1, Multnomah County v. School Dist. No. 45, Multnomah County
Decision Date | 20 November 1934 |
Parties | SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1, MULTNOMAH COUNTY v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 45, MULTNOMAH COUNTY, et al. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
En Banc.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County; James P. Stapleton Judge.
Declaratory judgment proceeding by School District No. 1, Multnomah County, Oregon, against School District No. 45, Multnomah County, Oregon, and others, to determine whether the consolidation of School District No. 1 and School District No. 45 is valid. From a judgment declaring such consolidation to be invalid, the named defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Homer Angell, of Portland (Angell & Fisher, of Portland, on the brief), for appellant.
L. V Lundburg, of Portland (B. A. Green, of Portland, on the brief), for respondent De Witt Henley.
Ralph H. King, of Portland, for respondent School District No. 1.
Defendant De Witt Henley filed a general demurrer to the further and separate answer of defendant School District No. 45, which demurrer was sustained; and, by stipulation the facts, as distinguished from legal conclusions, alleged in the complaint and in the further and separate answer are admitted. They constitute all of the facts appearing in the record.
The complaint alleges that plaintiff was and now is a school district of the first class, and that defendant School District No. 45 was a school district of the second class in Multnomah county, Or.; that defendants Rude, Dana, and Mann were the directors of School District No. 45; that the defendant Henley was a resident, property owner, and taxpayer in said District No. 45; and that the defendants Phegley Shull, Bigelow, and Cannon comprised the District Boundary Board of Multnomah County.
The remaining allegations of said complaint are as follows:
Thereupon said District Boundary Board at said meeting made the following declaration:
"'In canvassing the vote it was found that the consolidation carried in District 45 with 118 votes for consolidation and 102 against. The District Attorney ruled that the vote taken in School District No. 1 a year ago for consolidation of Districts 45 and 1, showing 8,861 votes for consolidation and 4,427 votes against (see minutes June 23, 1933) would hold and no election in School District No. 1 would be necessary at this time.
" " That thereupon the District Boundary Board, as set forth in the above proceedings, declared School District No. 1 and School District No. 45 consolidated; and thereupon said District Boundary Board notified the County Treasurer of Multnomah County, the County Assessor of Multnomah County, the Clerk of School District No. 1 and the Clerk of School District No. 45 of said consolidation.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Portland General Elec. Co. v. City of Estacada
... ... 275 ... In the case of School Dist. No. 1 v. School Dist. No. 45, 148 Or. 554, ... v. Clatsop County School Dist. No. 3, 188 Or. 324, 332, 334, 215 ... ...
-
School Dist. No. 7 of Wallowa County v. Weissenfluh
...23 (1943).12 School District No. 68 v. Hoskins, 194 Or. 301, 240 P.2d 949 (1952); School District No. 1, Multnomah County v. School District No. 45, Multnomah County, 148 Or. 554, 37 P.2d 873 (1934); State ex rel. School District No. 25 v. Evans, 82 Or. 46, 160 P. 140 ...
-
Spiking School Dist. No. 71, DeKalb County v. Purported 'Enlarged School Dist. R-11, DeKalb County, Mo.'
...State ex rel. Consolidated School Dist. No. 1 v. Jones, 320 Mo. 353, 8 S.W.2d 66, 67(5). The case of School Dist. No. 1, Multnomah Co. v. School Dist. No. 45, 148 Or. 554, 37 P.2d 873, does not aid appellants. In that case plaintiff school district No. 1 alleged facts tending to show that a......
-
Lothstein v. Fitzpatrick
...is a disputable presumption that official duty has been regularly performed. Section 2-407 (15), O.C.L.A.; School Dist. No. 1 v. School Dist. No. 45, 148 Or. 554, 576, 37 P. (2d) 873; Latourette v. Kruse, 139 Or. 422, 424, 10 P. (2d) 592; Gillard v. Gillard, 88 Or. 95, 101, 171 P. 557; 20 A......