Oregon v. Portland Gen. Elec. Co.
Oregon Supreme Court
From Multnomah: Arthur L. Frazer, Judge. Statement by Mr. Justice Eakin. As disclosed by the amended complaint, this is a suit brought by the State against the defendant, as successor in interest of the Willamette Falls Canal & Lock Co., which we shall hereafter refer to as the “first company,” to recover the 10 per cent of the net profits arising from tolls collected on the canal and locks at Oregon City, as provided by an act of the legislature of the year 1870. On…
Read the full summary
From Multnomah: Arthur L. Frazer, Judge. Statement by Mr. Justice Eakin. As disclosed by the amended complaint, this is a suit brought by the State against the defendant, as successor in interest of the Willamette Falls Canal & Lock Co., which we shall hereafter refer to as the “first company,” to recover the 10 per cent of the net profits arising from tolls collected on the canal and locks at Oregon City, as provided by an act of the legislature of the year 1870. On September 14, 1868, the first company incorporated for the purpose of constructing a canal and locks at, and on the west side…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Eakin
1. Defendant insists that the plaintiff cannot now question the ruling on the demurrer to the amended complaint, for the reason that a judgment was rendered at that time dismissing so much of the pleading as related to the matter covered by the demurrer, and that more than six months had elapsed thereafter before the appeal was taken. A demurrer is a part of the proceeding by which a cause is put at issue, and the order sustaining it eliminates from the pleading the matter so demurred to.
*5132. No further order or judgment is required or effective for that purpose; and the ruling thereon may be…
2Cases cited40 opinions
- Shively v. BowlbySupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- United States v. KirkpatrickSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
- Thomas v. Railroad Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Railroad Co. v. SchurmeirSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
- Daniels v. TearneySupreme Court of the United States · 1880
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by69 opinions
- In re Willow CreekOregon Supreme Court · 1914
- Re Determination of Water Rights of Hood River.Oregon Supreme Court · 1923
- Pacific Elevator Co. v. PortlandOregon Supreme Court · 1913
- Clendaniel v. ConradSupreme Court of Delaware · 1912
- Bramwell v. RowlandOregon Supreme Court · 1927
64 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.