State v. Lord
Oregon Supreme Court
Appeal from Marion: H. H. Hewitt, Judge. This is a suit to enjoin the defendants William P. Lord, H. R. Kincaid, and Philip Metschan, in their capacity as a state board of commissioners of public buildings, from carrying into effect certain acts of the legislative assembly providing for the construction of a branch asylum in the eastern portion of the state, and appropriating money therefor, because of the alleged unconstitutionality of the portions thereof locating such…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Marion: H. H. Hewitt, Judge. This is a suit to enjoin the defendants William P. Lord, H. R. Kincaid, and Philip Metschan, in their capacity as a state board of commissioners of public buildings, from carrying into effect certain acts of the legislative assembly providing for the construction of a branch asylum in the eastern portion of the state, and appropriating money therefor, because of the alleged unconstitutionality of the portions thereof locating such asylum in eastern Oregon. The amended complaint, omitting the caption and formal parts, alleges: “That the relator herein,…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Wolverton.
1. When this case was here before (State v. Pennoyer, 26 Or. 205; 25 L. R. A. 862; 37 Pac. 906), we held that a private individual could not have public officers enjoined from using public funds unless it could be shown that some civil or property rights were being-invaded, or, in other words, that the individual was going to get hurt by the transaction. Upon that principle it was decided that he should be required to show that the location and building of the branch asylum in eastern Oregon would be attended with greater cost and expense than if constructed at…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- United States v. ThrockmortonSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Attorney General v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1874
- Board of Liquidation v. McCombSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- State ex rel. Attorney General v. CunningamWisconsin Supreme Court · 1892
- Coosaw Mining Co. v. South CarolinaSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by53 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Burg v. City of AlbuquerqueNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1926
- Mountain States Legal Foundation v. Douglas M. Costle, State of Colorado Ex Rel. J. D. MacFarlane Petitioner-IntervenorCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1980
- State Ex Rel. Carson v. KozerOregon Supreme Court · 1928
- STATE, BY & THROUGH HALEY v. City of TroutdaleOregon Supreme Court · 1978
- State v. MetschanOregon Supreme Court · 1896
48 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.