Mackenzie v. Douglas County
Oregon Supreme Court
From Douglas: James W. Hamilton, Judge. Department 2. Statement by Mr. Justice Bean. This is an action by W. R. Mackenzie and C. A. Mackenzie, partners doing business under the firm name and style of W. R. Mackenzie & Son against Douglas County, Oregon, a municipal corporation, on a contract alleged to have been made on or about September 28, 1914, by plaintiffs and the state insurance commissioner on behalf of Douglas County under the provisions of Chapter 286, Laws of…
Read the full summary
From Douglas: James W. Hamilton, Judge. Department 2. Statement by Mr. Justice Bean. This is an action by W. R. Mackenzie and C. A. Mackenzie, partners doing business under the firm name and style of W. R. Mackenzie & Son against Douglas County, Oregon, a municipal corporation, on a contract alleged to have been made on or about September 28, 1914, by plaintiffs and the state insurance commissioner on behalf of Douglas County under the provisions of Chapter 286, Laws of 1913, page 545, for the purpose of having a careful and accurate audit made of its books and accounts. Plaintiffs allege…
1Opinion
Denied September 26, 1916.
On Petition for Rehearing.
(159 Pac. 1033.)
2Opinion of the CourtJustice Bean
Passing by the mere disputatious assertions which are of little assistance in the construction of a statute, we note that the petition for a rehearing in this case is based largely upon the theory that the court found that the state insurance commissioner was not authorized to audit the accounts of a county of the state for the year 1914 and collect pay therefor from such county. This is not the conclusion indicated by the former opinion. "What we held was that the claim, as shown by the record, was not for the services of…
3Cases cited2 opinions
- Anderson v. Stayton State BankOregon Supreme Court · 1916
- Berridge v. Marion CountyOregon Supreme Court · 1916