U'Ren v. Bagley
Decision Date | 11 May 1926 |
Parties | U'REN v. BAGLEY, JUDGE. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
In Banc.
Original proceeding by W. S. U'Ren for writ of mandamus against George R. Bagley, Judge of the Circuit Court of Washington County. On demurrer. Demurrer overruled.
W. N. Gatens, W. M. Davis, Richards & Richards, and W. S. U'Ren, all of Portland, for petitioner.
E. B Tongue, Thomas H. Tongue, Jr., W. G. Hare, and George R Bagley, all of Hillsboro, for respondent.
This is an original proceeding in mandamus to compel Hon. George R Bagley, circuit judge of the Nineteenth judicial district, to grant a change of venue or to call in another judge to preside over a suit pending, pursuant to section 45--1, Oregon Laws, and to section 45--2, Oregon Laws, chapter 143 of General Laws of Oregon for 1925, which provide as follows:
To support motion for change of venue or the calling of another judge, petitioner, who is an attorney at law, made affidavit, in part as follows:
"That the Honorable George R. Bagley, who is the regularly elected and acting judge of said circuit court of the state of Oregon for Washington county, and before whom said suit is pending, is so prejudiced against me that I cannot, and I verily believe I cannot, have a fair and/or impartial trial of said cause before said judge."
The single question involved is the constitutionality of the above act. It is the first time its validity has been squarely before this court for decision, although there are expressions in State ex rel. Johnson v. Circuit Court for Deschutes County, 114 Or. 6, 233 P. 563, 234 P. 262, and State v. Dobson (Or.) 241 P. 383, indicating a variance of opinion relative thereto.
It is conceded in the very able briefs submitted that the language of this statute is absolute and mandatory. No discretion is vested in the judge against whom the affidavit is filed as to his recusation. When an affidavit is timely made and in substantial compliance with the statute, the disqualification of the judge is accomplished so far as proceeding further in that particular cause is concerned. There is no issue of law or fact to determine. The course that the judge must pursue is fixed by statute.
A similar act has thus been construed by the courts of our sister state from whose laws the statute in question was copied. State of Washington ex rel. Lefebvre v. Clifford, 65 Wash. 313, 118 P. 40; State of Washington ex rel. Dunham v. Superior Court for Lewis County, 106 Wash. 507, 180 P. 481, and cases cited from same jurisdiction. As stated in State v. Stilwell, 100 Or. 637, 198 P. 559:
"When a statute is copied from the laws of another state, it is usually assumed that it is taken with the construction put upon it by the courts of the state in which it originated."
Did the Legislature go beyond its constitutional powers in enacting this law and thereby invade the province of a co-ordinate branch of the government? Under our constitutional system of government, the legislative, executive, and judicial branches are required to function exclusively within their respective spheres. The success which our form of government has achieved in the past may be attributed largely to the fact that each co-ordinate branch has recognized the fundamental and salutary principle that there must be no encroachment upon the other. It remains, however, for the judiciary to say when there has been a transgression in this respect. This authority vested in the courts is one which should be exercised with extreme caution and only when there has been a plain and palpable abridgment of the powers of one department by another. To determine with precision the boundary between the respective co-ordinate branches of our government has ever been a difficult thing for the courts to do. The question at bar is in the twilight zone. Hence we must proceed with circumspection when called upon to say that there has been a legislative abridgment of judicial power. Courts are ever reluctant to annul by judicial sentence what has been enacted by the lawmaking power. In fact, when the life of a statute is at stake, it is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt. Cooley's Constitutional Limitations (7th Ed.) 252; State v. Laundy, 103 Or. 443. 204 P. 958, 206 [118 Or. 82] P. 290; Smith et al. v. Cameron et al., 106 Or. 1, 210 P. 716, 27 A. L. R. 510; State v. Jacobson, 80 Or. 648, 157 P. 1108, L. R. A. 1916E, 1180.
We take as a premise the truism that every citizen is entitled to a fair and impartial trial. To secure that sacred and constitutional right, legislation undoubtedly may be enacted. Does it not follow that court procedure may be regulated to the end that justice will be administered? May not the state through its legislative branch of government declare the policy of the law to be that courts shall be free from any question of bias or prejudice? The Legislature in effect has said that it is better, as a matter of public policy and the due administration of justice, that a judge, when challenged for bias or prejudice, should not act in that particular cause, even though he be blessed with all of the virtues any judge ever possessed. Courts, like Cæsar's wife, must be not only virtuous but above suspicion. In Oakley v. Aspinwall, 3 N. Y. 547, it was well said:
The law is not so much concerned with the respective rights of judge, litigant, or attorney in any particular cause, as it is, as a matter of public policy, that the courts shall maintain the confidence of the people. 15 R. C. L. 530. As stated in People v. Suffolk Common Pleas, 18 Wend. (N. Y.) 550:
"Next in importance to the duty of rendering a righteous judgment is that of doing it in such a manner as will beget no suspicion of the fairness and integrity of the judge."
No judge has a vested right to sit in a particular case. Neither has a litigant nor an attorney a vested right to have his case heard by any particular judge. In the consideration of this statute a more important question is involved, viz. the purity, stability, and integrity of courts.
In our opinion, the fallacy of the contention of defendant lies in the assumption that this law enables the attorney or party litigant to establish conclusively by affidavit the bias or prejudice of the judge as a matter of fact, and is therefore an invasion of judicial power. This conclusion finds support in Ex parte N. K. Fairbank Co. (D. C.) 194 F. 978, but such holding is not in keeping with the decided weight of authority, as shown by the cases hereinafter cited. In the N. K. Fairbank Co. case it was held to be a curtailment of the judicial power to deprive a judge of the right to pass on the facts set out in an affidavit of prejudice, but this view is not sustained by the United States Supreme Court in Berger v. United States, 255 U.S. 22, 41 S.Ct. 230, 65 L.Ed. 481, nor by the state appellate courts. Also see Fisk v. Henarie (C. C.) 32 F. 417, and Short v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. (C. C.) 33 F. 114.
It is the challenge of and not the fact of prejudice that ipso facto disqualifies the judge from acting in a particular cause. Chief Justice Ryan in Bachmann v. City...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Holmes
......Superior Court, 137 Cal.Rptr. at 473 n. 22, 561 P.2d at 1161 n. 22 (emphasis in original). . Page 722 . See also U'ren v. Bagley, 118 Or. 77, 245 P. 1074, 1076 (1926). . Although the test "material impairment or practical defeat of the proper functioning of the ......
-
Valley & Siletz R. Co. v. Thomas
......See, also,. State ex rel. Colcord v. Young, 31 Fla. 594, 12 So. 673, 19 L. R. A. 636, 34 Am. St. Rep. 41; U'Ren v. Bagley, 118 Or. 77, 245 P. 1074, 46 A. L. R. 1173, 1174;. Rugenstein v. Ottenheimer, 78 Or. 371, 374, 152 P. 215, Ann. Cas. 1917E, 953. And ......
-
Miller v. Pacific Trawlers, Inc.
......Etling, 255 Or. 395, 467 P.2d 633 (1970); International Trans. v. Bohannon, 252 Or. 356, 449 P.2d 847 (1969); U'Ren v. Bagley, 118 Or. 77, 245 P. 1074 (1926). See generally C.P. Jhong, Annotation, Prohibition or Mandamus as Appropriate Remedy to Review Ruling on Change ......
-
LaMon v. Butler
......Bagley, 118 Or. 77, 85, 245 P. 1074, 46 A.L.R. 1173 (1926) (quoting Section 45-3, Oregon Laws). The Oregon Supreme Court interpreted the term "party" in ......