State v. Levy

Decision Date20 April 1915
Citation147 P. 919,76 Or. 63
PartiesSTATE v. LEVY ET AL.
CourtOregon Supreme Court

Department 1.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County; Geo. N. Davis, Judge.

B. H Levy and another were jointly charged in the district court of Multnomah county with engaging in the business of a commission merchant, in violation of the provisions of chapter 88 of the Session Laws of 1913. They were convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of $25 each. Upon appeal to the circuit court a demurrer to the complaint was sustained, and the action dismissed. From this judgment, the State appeals. Affirmed.

Geo. Mowry, Deputy Dist. Atty., of Portland (Walter H Evans, Dist. Atty., of Portland, on the brief), for the State. Sanderson Reed, of Portland (Reed & Bell, of Portland on the brief), for respondents.

BENSON J.

Defendants in support of their demurrer, contend that the act upon which the prosecution is based violates the Constitution of Oregon in several particulars, and the validity of the statute is the sole question submitted upon this appeal. The title of the act reads as follows:

"An act to regulate and license and define the business of commission merchants or persons selling horticultural produce and farm products on commission and to require them to give a bond to the state of Oregon for the benefit of their consignors and prescribing a penalty for the violating of any of the provisions of this act."

Section 1 reads as follows:

"For the purposes of this act a commission merchant is defined to be a person, firm or corporation whose principal business is the sale of farm, dairy, orchard or garden produce on account of the shipper or consignor, or solicit consignments of any character. No person shall sell or receive or solicit consignments, of such commodities for sale, on commission without first obtaining a license from the State Railroad Commission to carry on the business of a commission merchant and executing and filing with the Secretary of State a bond to the state for the benefit of his consignors; the amount of the bond to be fixed and sureties to be approved by the Commission, who may increase or reduce the amount of the bond from time to time."

The other sections authorize the Railroad Commission to require from the merchant statements of his business, to revoke his license for cause upon notice and hearing. It is observed, however, that the statute is silent as to the nature of the notice or the party served. The act further provides that the Commission may, after investigation, cancel the license for any violation of law or conduct prejudicial to the interests of those making consignments, and declares certain acts of omission and commission,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Multnomah County v. First Nat. Bank of Portland
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • 22 Octubre 1935
    ... ... National Bank of Portland and I. H. Van Winkle, Attorney ... General of the state, to determine the constitutionality of ... chapter 197, p. 287, Or. Laws 1935, and the validity of a ... certain contract about to be ... mentioned in the title of the act. Town of Gaston v ... Thompson, 89 Or. 412, 174 P. 717; State v ... Levy, 76 Or. 63, 147 P. 919; Spaulding Logging Co ... v. Independence Improvement Co., 42 Or. 394, 71 P. 132 ... 2. It ... is ... ...
  • Nielson v. Bryson
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • 9 Diciembre 1970
    ...414 P.2d 814 (1966); Northern Wasco County People's Utility District v. Wasco County, 210 Or. 1, 305 P.2d 766 (1957); and State v. Levy, 76 Or. 63, 147 P. 919 (1915), and also cited by petitioner, do not state a contrary rule.3 Petitioner points out that ORS 441.510 does not require that a ......
  • State v. Beaver Portland Cement Co.
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • 7 Abril 1942
    ...to it. For this reason the section is a nullity, as clearly in violation of § 20 of article IV of the Oregon constitution: State v. Levy, 76 Or. 63, 147 P. 919; State v. Perry, 77 Or. 453, 151 P. 655; Peterson v. Lewis, 78 Or. 641, 654, 154 P. 101; Korth v. City of Portland, 123 Or. 180, 19......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT