# Oregon Farm Bureau v. Thompson

> Oregon Supreme Court · July 31, 1963 · 235 Or. 162

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9533107

## Case

- **Full name:** OREGON FARM BUREAU v. THOMPSON Et Al
- **Court:** Oregon Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 31, 1963
- **Citations:** 235 Or. 162; 384 P.2d 182; 378 P.2d 563
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by MaALLISTER
- **Judges:** Maallister, McAllister, Rossman, Sloan, Goodwin, Lusk, Perry, O'Connell, Gtoodwin, Denecke
- **Cited by:** 22 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9533107

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that “a party, through failure to make timely protest, may waive his objection to the lack of jurisdiction of a court of equity over the subject matter if the court’s jurisdiction is defective in some degree but not wholly lacking”

## Opinion text

MaALLISTER, C. J.,
specially concurring.
I concur in the result of the majority opinion, but wish to limit the grounds of my concurrence.
In my opinion this declaratory judgment proceeding was legal in nature, and the defendant Thompson was entitled to a resolution of the questions of fact as in an action at law. In this respect I agree with the dissenting opinion and the authorities cited therein. The majority opinion seems to equivocate as to the nature of the proceeding and expresses doubt that it is legal in nature. In that regard I disagree with the majority opinion.
I do agree that Thompson’s conduct in treating the case in the trial court as an equitable proceeding, in failing to assert in the trial court his right to have the case treated as an action at law, and his acquiescence in the ruling of the trial court that the case was equitable, preclude him from now asserting that the questions of fact should have been decided as in an action at law.
I believe the questions of fact were properly re *200 examined and decided in onr original opinion. I, therefore, concur in the result of the majority opinion.
Goodwin, J., concurs in this opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9533107. Public record. Not legal advice.