Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Herald Publishing Co. v. Klamath Falls Publishing Co.

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided September 22, 1925Published

1Concurrence

BELT, J.,

Specially Concurring.—In my opinion the City of Klamath Falls is an indispensable party to this suit. It is vitally interested in the contract and cannot be divested of its rights therein without an opportunity to have had its day in court. The fact that plaintiff alleges the contract to be illegal does not alter the rule. Has not the city a right to be heard as to whether it is entering into an alleged illegal contract? Indeed, it is presumed that municipalities, as well as individuals, are fair and honest in business transactions.

The rule is thus stated in 32 C. J. 298:

“Where the…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Wenk v. . City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1902
  2. Moore v. HeldSupreme Court of Iowa · 1887
  3. Gillespie v. GibbsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1906
  4. Turner v. CruzenSupreme Court of Iowa · 1886
  5. Allison v. EllisCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1923

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API