State ex rel. Public Welfare Commission v. Malheur County Court
Decision Date | 04 March 1949 |
Citation | 203 P.2d 305,185 Or. 392 |
Parties | STATE ex rel. PUBLIC WELFARE COMMISSION v. COUNTY COURT OF MALHEUR COUNTY. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Original proceeding in mandamus by the State of Oregon upon relation of State Public Welfare Commission, composed of J. H. Luihn and others, against County Court of Malheur County, Oregon composed of Irwin Troxell and others, commissioners, to compel the county court to budget and set aside for contribution by county to the state welfare program for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1948, and ending June 30, 1949 certain sums of money and to draw warrants in favor of the state public welfare commission in compliance with Oregon laws, 1947, c. 545.
Peremptory writ issued.
Rex Kimmell, Deputy Atty. Gen. (George Neuner, Atty Gen., on the brief), for petitioner.
Charles W. Swan, Dist. Atty., of Vale, for Malheur County.
Robert D. Lytle, of Vale, for defendant.
Before LUSK, C.J., and BRAND, BELT, ROSSMAN, KELLY and BAILEY, JJ.
A petition for an alternative writ of mandamus was originally filed by the State Public Welfare Commission, but by order of this court the petition was so amended as to make the State of Oregon the petitioning party. It sues upon the relation of the Commission. An alternative writ issued upon the amended petition. We quote:
'Whereas it manifestly appears to us by the verified petition of the relator herein:
'I
'II
'III
'That for the purpose of securing grants of federal money to assist in providing public assistance, the state of Oregon has submitted to the proper federal agency under the provisions of chapter 7, Title 42 U.S.C.A., and had approved, a state program for the administration of public assistance, and as a result the state is receiving federal grants for old-age assistance, aid to the needy blind, and aid to dependent children.
'IV
'Under the provisions of section 126-110, O.C.L.A., as amended by section, 5, chapter 545, Oregon Laws 1947, and exclusive of sums of money granted or contributed by the government of the United States, as alleged in paragraph III of this writ, Malheur County is required to contribute 30 per cent of all sums required to be expended in such county for general assistance, old-age assistance, blind assistance and aid to dependent children.
'V
'VI
'The defendant, County Court of Malheur County, has refused and does still refuse to include in its budget for the fiscal year 1948-1949 the amount so found and certified to it by relator.
'VII
'The defendant has notified relator that it will not levy a tax for or otherwise provide and contribute to the public assistance program in Malheur County for the year 1948-1949 any sum other than the sum of $39,879.60, and it will not issue its warrants in favor of the State Public Welfare Commission for one-quarter of the amount found and certified by relator as being required from that county on or before the first day of each calendar quarter of the ensuing fiscal year or otherwise, and will not so issue its warrants in any amount greater than one-quarter of the sum of $39.879.60.
'VIII
'Malheur County's required contribution to the cost of administration of the public welfare program therein is in the sum of $10,975.25, to be paid on or before the first days of July and October, 1948, and January and April, 1949; such County refuses to contribute such amounts and has officially notified relator that it will contribute no amount in excess of $9,969.90 on said dates or otherwise.
'IX
'Relator has no plain, speedy or adequate remedy at law.
'Now, Therefore, we do command you to budget and set aside for contribution by Malheur County to the state welfare program for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1948, and ending June 30, 1949, the total sum of $43,901.00, and we do further command you that you draw warrants of Malheur County in favor of the State Public Welfare Commission on or before the first day of each calendar quarter of said fiscal year in the amount of one-fourth of such total sum or $10,975.25, or that you show cause before this Court on the 29th day of October, 1948, at the hour of 11 A. M., why you have not done so, and that you then and there return this writ, with your certificate annexed thereto, of having done as hereby commanded, or showing the cause of your omission thereof.'
To the amended writ the respondent county court demurred upon the following grounds:
'I On the ground that plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue.
'II On the ground that the Writ fails to state a cause against the defendant for the following reasons:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Colorado Dept. of Social Services v. Board of County Com'rs of Pueblo County
...residents of their communities receive assistance for basic subsistence needs is compelling. See State ex rel. Public Welfare Commission v. County Court, 185 Or. 392, 203 P.2d 305 (1949). The General Assembly has further recognized that county purposes are served by the Code by placing some......
-
Bonnet v. State
...power to require a local unit of government to perform a function and to bear the costs of doing so. In State v. County Court of Malheur County, 185 Or. 392, 203 P.2d 305 (Sup.Ct.1949), the state sued for, and obtained, a writ of Mandamus to compel county officials to include in the county ......
-
Sterne, Agee & Leach, Inc. v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n (Ex parte U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n)
...questions of law have been decided in the interpretations of statutes and the constitution: State ex rel. Public Welfare Commission v. Malheur County Court, 185 Or. 392, 203 P.2d 305, 307 (1949) ; State ex rel. Pierce v. Slusher, 119 Or. 141, 248 P. 358 (1926) ; City of Astoria v. Cornelius......
-
Jarvill v. City of Eugene
...We have held that these two constitutional provisions requiring tax uniformity are to be read together. State ex rel. v. Malheur County Court, 185 Or. 392, 411, 203 P.2d 305 (1949).The two provisions, however, are not identical. Although article IX, section 1 requires uniform taxation, the ......