This case is an original mandamus proceeding in which Multnomah County residents challenged a Washington County circuit judge's denial of their motion to quash service and dismiss an equity suit seeking to enjoin a nuisance from rock quarrying on property they owned in Washington County. The relators had been served only in Multnomah County, where they resided. The court held that venue was improperly laid in Washington County under the applicable statute because the suit did not involve partition, foreclosure, or determination of interests in real property, and the defendants neither resided nor were served there. It reasoned that personal service confers jurisdiction but venue is a waivable personal privilege, so a timely motion to quash must be granted when venue is improper. The court therefore overruled the demurrer and issued a peremptory writ directing the judge to quash the service.
The case concerns an appeal challenging the validity of an alimony award in a prior divorce decree, specifically whether the plaintiff could be held liable for unpaid alimony after the divorce was granted. The majority opinion addressed the availability of the full divorce record for review in such proceedings and overruled part of the earlier decision in Griffith v. Griffith. The dissent argues there is no controlling distinction from prior cases like Crumbley v. Crumbley and Griffith v. Griffith, asserting that the entire record should be accessible to determine equitable outcomes whether the challenge arises on direct appeal, from a contempt order, or from enforcement of alimony arrears. The dissent concurs in the overall result but disagrees with limiting record review. The core reasoning emphasizes fairness and consistency in examining the divorce proceedings to resolve alimony disputes.
The case involved a plaintiff who lost approximately $9,495 playing stud poker at defendants' Portland cafe, where the defendants' employees dealt cards and took a percentage of each pot from the players' chips. Plaintiff sued under Oregon statutes making such gambling a misdemeanor and granting losers a cause of action to recover double their losses from the dealer, winning player, or proprietor benefiting from the game. The trial court apparently ruled against the plaintiff, but the Supreme Court of Oregon reversed, holding that defendants qualified as proprietors who benefited directly from the games by taking a cut of the stakes. The court reasoned that the Oregon statute expressly allows recovery from such proprietors, unlike narrower laws in other states, and that the facts established the defendants' role as a matter of law, so the case must be submitted to a jury with instructions on the statutory terms. The judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings.
This case involves a criminal appeal challenging the sufficiency of evidence identifying the defendant as the perpetrator in a prosecution for sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. The sole question was whether the record contained substantial testimony linking the defendant to the act that occurred after he moved to the rear seat of the parked car. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the prosecutrix's direct testimony, her statement that she had not previously had relations with any man, and the officers' accounts of the defendant's admissions created an issue of fact for the jury that was not erased by the defendant's contrary testimony.
The case involved a dispute between James W. McIver and William Norman over a 1941 written agreement to hold title to property in Portland, Oregon, build a residence through Equitable Service Inc., and share equally in net profits or losses from its eventual sale. McIver, whose company was involved in construction, sued Norman for an accounting after Norman and his wife took title, obtained a mortgage, completed and occupied the home, and rejected further claims. The court held that the parties were joint adventurers whose fiduciary relationship continued for winding up the venture, rejecting defenses of abandonment, prior accounting, laches, and speculative delay. It reversed the trial court and remanded for an accounting, applying partnership principles that require strict accountability among coadventurers regardless of changed circumstances or delays.
This case is a divorce action in which plaintiff Margie Kilborn alleged that defendant Oscar Kilborn treated her cruelly by using abusive language, making unfounded accusations of infidelity, striking her, and displaying an irritable disposition. Defendant denied the claims and counter-alleged that plaintiff neglected their children, pursued amusements, nagged him, and engaged in suspicious conduct with another man. After reviewing the testimony, which failed to substantiate defendant's charges but included corroboration of plaintiff's accounts of physical abuse, the trial court granted plaintiff a divorce, and the appellate court affirmed the decree.
