Case law

Maxwell v. Akin

89 F. 178 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon · Aug 25, 1898

The cases of Thomas v. Railroad Co., 101 U. S. 82 , and Oregon Ry. & Nav. Co. v. Oregonian Ry. Co., 130 U. S. 22 , 9 Sup. … The power possessed by the board of directors to levy and collect assessments is vested in the receiver, who may act when the board fails or refuses, as in this case, to do so. The demurrer is overruled.

Oregon R. & Navigation Co. v. Campbell

173 F. 957 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon · Sep 28, 1909

The Legislature has created a Board of Canal Commissioners, a Board of Fish Commissioners, a Board of Agriculture, an Insurance Commissioner, the Secretary of State being made, ex officio, such commissioner, a Food and Dairy … There can exist no valid objection to conferring such authority upon an administrative board. The board thereafter administers the law as devised.

Bower v. Stein

165 F. 232 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon · Nov 16, 1908

Wagner v. Baird, 7 How. 234, 238 , 12 L. Ed. 681 ; Harwood v. Railroad Co., 17 Wall. 78, 81 , 21 L. Ed. 558 ; Sullivan v. Portland, etc., Railroad, 94 U. S. 806, 811 , 24 L. Ed. 324 ; Brown v. … Ed. 718; Richards v. Mackall, 124 U. S. 183, 188 , 8 Sup. Ct. 437, 31 L. Ed. 396 .” To the same effect is Wagner v.

Patterson v. Thompson

86 F. 85 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon · Mar 24, 1898

Halsey v. McLean, 12 Allen, 438 ; Bank v. Bliss, 35 N. Y. 412 ; Chase v. Curtis, 113 U. S. 452 , 5 Sup. Ct. 554; Irvine v. McKeon, 23 Cal. 472 ; Merchants’ Nat. Bank of Chicago v. … W. 117 ; Bank v. Price, 33 Md. 487 ; Moies v. Sprague, 9 R. I. 541; Iron Co. v. Pierce, 4 Biss. 327 , Fed. Cas. No. 14,367; Gregory v. Bank, 3 Colo. 333 ; Breitung v. Lindauer, 37 Mich. 217 ; Stebbins v.

Stuart v. Holland

179 F. 969 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon · Jun 27, 1910

Jones v. Perkins (C. C.) 76 Fed. 82 . The rule supported by the stronger authority, however, is thus stated by Mr. Justice Brown, in Galliher v. Cadwell, 145 U. S. 368, *972 372 , 12 Sup. Ct. 873, 874 ( 36 L. … Johnston v. Standard Mining Co., 148 U. S. 360 , 13 Sup. Ct. 585, 37 L. Ed. 480 ; Bybee v. Summers, 4 Or. 354, 361 .

Oregon v. Three Sisters Irr. Co.

158 F. 346 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon · Dec 30, 1907

Ed. 1048 ; Galveston, etc., Railway v. Texas, 170 U. S. 226 , 18 Sup. Ct. 603, 42 L. Ed. 1017 ; Third St. & Suburban Railway v. Lewis, 173 U. S. 457 , 19 Sup. Ct. 451, 43 L. Ed. 766 ; Minnesota v. … Justice Brown in Re Lennon (a later case) 166 U. S. 548, 554 , 17 Sup. Ct. 658, 41 L. Ed. 1110 . No better instance is afforded of a cause of action growing out of an act of Congress than Osborn v.

United States v. Northern Pac. R.

67 F. 890 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon · May 11, 1895

The special findings of fact so referred to were the findings of the circuit court upon the trial, and they were, in substance, that the defendants had cut from the lands in controversy 293,505 feet of lumber, board measure … The supreme court, in Wooden-Ware Co. v. U. S., 106 U. S. 434 , 1 Sup.

Barnes v. Multnomah County

145 F. 695 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon · May 7, 1906

Nottage v. City of Portland, 35 Or. 539 , 58 Pac. 883 , 76 Am. St. Rep. 513 ; Thomas v. Portland, 40 Or. 50 , 66 Pac. 439 ; Real Estate Co. v. Gambell, 41 Or. 61 , 66 Pac. 441 ; Ferguson v. … Of course, it could not cure such defects as want of power in the grantor to convey, as is instanced by the case of Shonk v. Brown, 61 Pa. 320 .

United States v. Oregon & C. R.

186 F. 861 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon · Apr 24, 1911

So in Brown v. … Justice Brown in Atlantic & Pacific Railroad v.

Hunt v. Oregon Pac. Ry. Co.

36 F. 481 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon · Oct 29, 1888

Ruff v. Rinaldo, 55 N. Y. 664 ; Hexter v. Knox, 63 N. Y. 561 ; Hinckley v. Beckwith, 13 Wis. 34 ; Shepard v. Gas-Light Co., 15 Wis. 349 ; Davis v. Talcott, 14 Barb. 611 ; 1 Sedg. Dam. 77; Field, Dam. p. 7, § 10. … See Griffin v. Colver , and Snell v. Cottingham, supra.

Rollins Investment Co. v. George

48 F. 776 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon · Dec 28, 1891

The relation of these two acts, and the effect of the latter upon the former, wore lately considered by the supreme court of the state, ( Winters v. George, 27 Pac. … Barnes v. District of Columbia, 91 U. S. 540 ; Brown v. District of Columbia, 127 U. S. 586 , 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1314.

Neff v. Pennoyer

17 F. Cas. 1291 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon · Oct 11, 1875

Newcomb v. Butterfield, 8 Johns. 345 ; Chipman v. Emeric, 5 Cal. 239 ; Mooers v. Allen, 2 Wend. 247 . … Bright v.

Oregon R. & Navigation Co. v. Campbell

180 F. 253 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon · Jul 11, 1910

Co. v. Texas, 204 U. S. 403, 409 , 27 Sup. Ct. 360, 51 L. … For illustration, take the case of Leisy v.

United States v. Mitchell

136 F. 896 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon · Apr 25, 1905

Ter. v. Barth (Ariz.) 15 Pac. 673 ; Wallis v. State, 54 Ark. 611 , 16 S. W. 821 ; Williams v. State, 69 Ga. 12 ; Burrell v. State, 129 Ind. 290 , 28 N. E. 699 ; State v. Brown, 12 Minn. 538 ( Gil. 448 ); Cotton v. … Similar questions to those presented upon this ground of the plea were considered by Judge Deady in United States v. Brown, 1 Sawy. 533 , Fed. Cas.

Wallamet Falls C. & L. Co. v. Kittridge

29 F. Cas. 85 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon · Dec 17, 1877

Canal Co. v. Baltimore & O. R. … See, also, to the same effect, People v. President, etc., of Manhattan Co., 9 Wend. 382 ; Bradt v. Benedict [17 N. Y.] 93; Mickles v. Rochester City Bank, 11 Paige, 118 .

Swift v. Meyers

37 F. 37 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon · Dec 24, 1888

In Brown v. … In Dawson v. Bank, 3 Ark. 505 , and Parks v.

Mills v. Mills

57 F. 873 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon · Sep 8, 1893

Harrington v. Brown, 5 Pick. 519 ; Mead v. Byingtom, 10 Vt. 116 ; Ives v. Ashley, 97 Mass. 198 ; Staples v. Staples, 24 Grat. 225; Harshman v. Slonaker, 53 Iowa, 467 , 5 N. W. … St. 383; Dunlap v. Mitchell, 10 Ohio, 117. It is not contended that the purchase price was inadequate, or that the sale was procured by unfair means. Warren F. was upon the ground.

Chappelle v. Olney

5 F. Cas. 503 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon · Dec 31, 1870

Hanger v. Abbott, 6 Wall. (73 U. S.) 532; Levy v. Stewart, 11 Wall. (78 U. S.) 244; Stewart v. Kahn, Id. 493; U. S. v. Wiley, Id. 508; Brown v. Hiatts, 15 Wall. (82 U. S.) 177; Adger v. Alston, Id. 555.] … Abr. 700; Hayward v. Hayward, 20 Pick. 520 ; Schuyler v. Hoyle, 5 Johns. Ch. 196 . In Hayward v. Hayward, and Schuyler v.

Tracy v. Reed

38 F. 69 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon · Mar 4, 1889

In Dubois v. … In Davis v.

McGahey v. Oregon King Mining Co.

165 F. 86 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon · Nov 9, 1908

prospectors were unsuccessful in their search in Friend’s field, but, on extending it without some distance, they came upon a prospect that manifestly had been previously discovered, and which was subsequently claimed by one Brown … It is “well settled,” says the court in Latta v. Kilbourn, 150 U. S. 524 . 541, 14 Sup. Ct. 201, 207, 37 L.