State ex inf. Evans v. Holman
Decision Date | 24 October 1914 |
Citation | 144 P. 429,73 Or. 18 |
Parties | STATE EX INF. EVANS, DIST. ATTY., v. HOLMAN. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
In Banc. Original proceeding by the State on the information of Walter H. Evans, District Attorney for Multnomah County against Rufus C. Holman. Demurrer to information sustained and action dismissed.
Walter H. Evans and Arthur A. Murphy, both of Portland for plaintiff. E. E. Coovert, of Portland, for defendant. Wallace McCamant and A. E. Clark, both of Portland, amici curiæ.
This is an action analogous to quo warranto instituted in this court, in the name of the state, upon the information of Walter H. Evans, the proper prosecuting attorney, to ascertain the right of Rufus C. Holman to act as county commissioner of Multnomah county, Or.; to determine the efficacy of orders made, judgments given, and decrees rendered by Thomas J. Cleeton while acting as a circuit judge of that county and of other counties of the state; and also to decide the validity of orders, etc., made, given, and rendered in all probate matters in Multnomah county since chapter 378 of the General Laws of Oregon of 1913 purported to go into effect. A demurrer to the information presents the inquiries to be considered. Chapter 378 of the General Laws of Oregon of 1913 filed in the office of the Secretary of State March 4, 1913, reads:
At the same time chapter 377 was also filed in the same manner and is as follows:
Section 2 of the act last quoted assigns a reason for the appointment of Mr. Holman. It is wholly immaterial what cause prompted his selection, if the legislative assembly had power to create the board of county commissioners of that county and to name as a member thereof a qualified elector who should hold the office
until his successor could be elected.
It appears that pursuant to section 2944, L. O. L., that at the general election held in that county November, 1910, D. V Hart was elected a county commissioner thereof for the term of four years, and at the election held therein in November, 1912, W. L. Lightner was also elected a county commissioner thereof for a like term, each of whom was to sit with the county judge of that county for the transaction of county business. The organic act of the state empowers the legislative assembly to provide for the election of two commissioners to sit with the county judge while transacting county business in any or all of the counties of the state, or a separate board for transacting such business may be provided. Const. Or. art. 7, § 12. It will thus be seen that the legislative assembly had ample power to create the board of county commissioners of Multnomah county. That department of the state government also possessed authority to name the person who should constitute the third member of that board. Biggs v. McBride, 17 Or. 640, 21 P. 878, 5 L. R. A. 115; State ex rel. v. George, 22 Or. 142, 29 P. 356, 16 L. R. A. 737, 29 Am. St. Rep. 586; Eddy v. Kincaid, 28 Or. 537, 41 P. 156, 655; State ex rel. v. Compson,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. McDonnell
...174. Instead, the court explained, a de facto judge's acts can only be directly attacked. Id. at 90, 295 P.2d 174. In State v. Holman, 73 Or. 18, 27, 144 P. 429 (1914), this court similarly concluded that judgments rendered by a de facto judge were valid unless the judge's "authority in suc......
-
State v. Vogh
...that a de facto judge's authority to act cannot be attacked after judgment or otherwise collaterally.10 As declared in State v. Holman, 73 Or. 18, 26-27, 144 P. 429 (1914), when a de facto judge has heard and determined a "all orders, judgments and decrees made, given and rendered by him th......
-
Dep't of Human Servs. v. J. H. (In re E. H.)
..."is a civil action in the nature of a quo warranto."6 Id. at 462, 15 P. 778 (internal quotation marks omitted).Next, in State v. Holman , 73 Or. 18, 144 P. 429 (1914), the court confirmed that the acts of a de facto judge are valid and binding and explained that any challenge to the de fact......
-
State ex rel. O'Connell v. Duncan
...office upon the successful candidates.” See, also, Worman v. Hagan, 78 Md. 152, 27 A. 616, 21 L.R.A. 716;State ex inf. Evans v. Holman, 73 Or. 18, 144 P. 429;State ex rel. Thompson v. Winnett, 78 Neb. 379, 110 N.W. 1113, 10 L.R.A.,N.S., 149, 15 Ann.Cas. 781. Our conclusion is that on and af......