State v. West
Oregon Supreme Court
From Marion: Percy R. Kelly, Judge. In Banc. Statement by Mr. Chief Justice McBride. In substance, it is stated in the amended complaint that during the period involved in this controversy the defendant West was Governor, the defendant Olcott, Secretary of State, and the defendant Kay, Treasurer of the State of Oregon; that they assumed to act as a board purporting to have control of what they termed the “Oregon State Penitentiary Revolving Fund,” consisting of rent of a…
Read the full summary
From Marion: Percy R. Kelly, Judge. In Banc. Statement by Mr. Chief Justice McBride. In substance, it is stated in the amended complaint that during the period involved in this controversy the defendant West was Governor, the defendant Olcott, Secretary of State, and the defendant Kay, Treasurer of the State of Oregon; that they assumed to act as a board purporting to have control of what they termed the “Oregon State Penitentiary Revolving Fund,” consisting of rent of a foundry plant at the prison and of money derived from sales of brick made by the convicts, aggregating during that time…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice McBride.
The answer of the defendant contains many conclusions of law and some inconsistencies. From all the pleadings it appears that there came into the hands of the State Treasurer from sales of brick and other products of the state penitentiary during the biennium of 1911 and 1913 the sum of $20,808.26, which, under the direction of the board, was charged in a separate account as a revolving fund, of which $16,191.33 was paid out by warrants drawn upon it for expenditures “found necessary in order to insure the safe custody of the inmates, promote the welfare of…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Epplett v. Empire Inv. Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1921
- Madden v. Condon Nat. BankOregon Supreme Court · 1915