Leick v. Beers

Oregon Supreme Court

Leick v. Beers

43 P. 658, 28 Or. 483, 1896 Ore. LEXIS 97

CourtOregon Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 3, 1896

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 43 P. 658 (Leick v. Beers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Leick v. Beers, 43 P. 658, 28 Or. 483, 1896 Ore. LEXIS 97 (Or. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice Bean.

1. The court below held the lien insufficient because it states that C. Yf. Beers was the owner of the property and not the reputed owner thereof, and there is respectable authority to support the ruling: McElwee v. Sandford, 53 How. Pr. 89; Malter v. Falcon Mining Company, 2 Pac. 50. But it is unnecessary for us to place our decision upon that ground as the lien is clearly insufficient within Rankin v. Malarkey, 23 Or. 593, (32 Pac. 620, 34 Pac. 816,) and Dillon v. Hart, 25 Or. 49 (34 Pac. 817).

[485]*4852. The refusal of a trial court to allow costs to either party in a suit iu equity will not be reviewed here except iu case of an abuse of discretion which is not shown in this case: Code, § 548; Lovejoy v. Chapman, 23 Or. 571 (32 Pac. 687); Cole v. Logan, 24 Or. 305 (33 Pac. 568). The decree of the court below is affirmed. Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice Bean.

1. The court below held the lien insufficient because it states that C. Yf. Beers was the owner of the property and not the reputed owner thereof, and there is respectable authority to support the ruling: McElwee v. Sandford, 53 How. Pr. 89; Malter v. Falcon Mining Company, 2 Pac. 50. But it is unnecessary for us to place our decision upon that ground as the lien is clearly insufficient within Rankin v. Malarkey, 23 Or. 593, (32 Pac. 620, 34 Pac. 816,) and Dillon v. Hart, 25 Or. 49 (34 Pac. 817).

[485]*4852. The refusal of a trial court to allow costs to either party in a suit iu equity will not be reviewed here except iu case of an abuse of discretion which is not shown in this case: Code, § 548; Lovejoy v. Chapman, 23 Or. 571 (32 Pac. 687); Cole v. Logan, 24 Or. 305 (33 Pac. 568). The decree of the court below is affirmed. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 P. 658, 28 Or. 483, 1896 Ore. LEXIS 97, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leick-v-beers-or-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack