State ex rel. Rosenheim v. Hoyt
Oregon Supreme Court
Appeal from Multnomah County. The relator Rosenheim complains of defendant Hoyt, that he, Rosenheim, on the 31st day of July, 1867, was duly elected marshal of the city of Portland, by the common council of said city; that he duly qualified as such officer, and offered -to perform the duties of such office; and he complains that the defendant, Hoyt, unlawfully holds the office of marshal and unlawfully refuses to give up the books, papers and property belonging thereto.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Multnomah County. The relator Rosenheim complains of defendant Hoyt, that he, Rosenheim, on the 31st day of July, 1867, was duly elected marshal of the city of Portland, by the common council of said city; that he duly qualified as such officer, and offered -to perform the duties of such office; and he complains that the defendant, Hoyt, unlawfully holds the office of marshal and unlawfully refuses to give up the books, papers and property belonging thereto. The defendant, after denying the allegations in complaint, for a further answer says that in June, 1866, he was duly elected…
1Opinion of the CourtBoise, C. J.
There can be no question but the relator, in voting for himself, violated the rule above quoted, and that, without his own vote, he would not have had a majority; and if such rule were binding on the council, then the election *249would be a nullity. We are of opinion that such rule was binding, and one seeking advantage from its violation, should not be permitted to gain by his own wrong. As to the other point, that the offices of councilman and marshal are incompatible and cannot be held by the same person, we think admits of no question. The marshal is the executive officer of the council, and…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Commonwealth Ex Rel. McCreary v. MajorSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
- Wood v. Town of WhitehallNew York Supreme Court · 1923
- Lattime v. HuntMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907
- People ex rel. Shirey v. PearsonNew York Supreme Court · 1923
- Piatt v. St. Clair's HeirsOhio Supreme Court · 1833
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.