City of Portland v. Stock
Oregon Supreme Court
Appeal from Multnomah County. — Section 22, Article 4, of the Constitution of Oregon construed. M. Stock, defendant below, was brought before the recorder of the city of Portland, upon a charge of violation of city ordinance No. 141, committed by unlawfully carrying on the business of a retail dealer, without first having, under that ordinance, obtained a license.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Multnomah County. — Section 22, Article 4, of the Constitution of Oregon construed. M. Stock, defendant below, was brought before the recorder of the city of Portland, upon a charge of violation of city ordinance No. 141, committed by unlawfully carrying on the business of a retail dealer, without first having, under that ordinance, obtained a license. He was fined by the recorder, appealed to the Circuit Court for Multnomah county, and upon a motion interposed by his counsel, was discharged and the proceeding dismissed. From this judgment and order the city of Portland appealed,…
1Opinion of the Court
Authorities cited by counsel are sufficiently mentioned in the opinion..
Wilson, J.
As these questions involve a construction of certain provisions contained in the charter of the city of Portland, the familiar rule conies in for our guidance here, that the powers and authority conferred upon municipal corporations are to be strictly construed, and the limit of such construction is the charter itself. Further comment upon the reason and safety of this rule is unnecessary. The counsel admit that this ordinance, No. 141, has its vitality not from the original charter of January 24th, 1854, but…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Home for Incurables v. BruffCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1931
- State v. WrightOregon Supreme Court · 1887
- Fleischner v. ChadwickOregon Supreme Court · 1874
- Grant County v. SelsOregon Supreme Court · 1874
- Kerr v. BradburyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2004
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.