Moran v. City of Milwaukie

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Moran v. City of Milwaukie

568 P.2d 711, 30 Or. App. 1005, 1977 Ore. App. LEXIS 1766

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedSeptember 19, 1977

DocketNo. 92157, CA 7656

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 568 P.2d 711 (Moran v. City of Milwaukie) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Moran v. City of Milwaukie, 568 P.2d 711, 30 Or. App. 1005, 1977 Ore. App. LEXIS 1766 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

TANZER, J.

This is an action for wages due. Plaintiff and his assignors were firemen employed by the City of Milwaukie. Their pay dining part of the 1973-74 fiscal year was computed according to a city-wide wage schedule which had been adopted by the city council instead of according to the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement between the City and the firefighters. When that inadvertence was discovered, it became apparent that some firefighters had been overpaid and others underpaid. The City paid the additional amounts owing under the contract to those in the underpaid classifications. It also sought to collect the overpayments to other firefighters by deductions from their current wages. Plaintiff and his assignors are among those whom the City claims to have overpaid.

Plaintiff contends on appeal that he was not overpaid because the collective bargaining contract was not properly adopted by the City and was therefore invalid. At trial, the contract, signed by the mayor on behalf of the City, was in evidence. There was no evidence of authorization by the council for the mayor to have signed it.

The trial court found that the "employment contract entered into by the city and signed by the Mayor * * * was a valid and subsisting agreement.” We may not set aside that finding unless it is unsupported by evidence. The contract is regular on its face. The finding is supported by the disputable presumption that official duty has been regularly performed, ORS 41.360(15). State v. Devore, 4 Or App 425, 479 P2d 1013 (1971); cf., Kernin v. City of Coquille, 143 Or 127, 21 P2d 1078 (1933). There is no disputing evidence of lack of authority of the mayor to sign contracts in general or this contract in particular. We therefore uphold the trial court’s finding.

Affirmed.

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

TANZER, J.

This is an action for wages due. Plaintiff and his assignors were firemen employed by the City of Milwaukie. Their pay dining part of the 1973-74 fiscal year was computed according to a city-wide wage schedule which had been adopted by the city council instead of according to the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement between the City and the firefighters. When that inadvertence was discovered, it became apparent that some firefighters had been overpaid and others underpaid. The City paid the additional amounts owing under the contract to those in the underpaid classifications. It also sought to collect the overpayments to other firefighters by deductions from their current wages. Plaintiff and his assignors are among those whom the City claims to have overpaid.

Plaintiff contends on appeal that he was not overpaid because the collective bargaining contract was not properly adopted by the City and was therefore invalid. At trial, the contract, signed by the mayor on behalf of the City, was in evidence. There was no evidence of authorization by the council for the mayor to have signed it.

The trial court found that the "employment contract entered into by the city and signed by the Mayor * * * was a valid and subsisting agreement.” We may not set aside that finding unless it is unsupported by evidence. The contract is regular on its face. The finding is supported by the disputable presumption that official duty has been regularly performed, ORS 41.360(15). State v. Devore, 4 Or App 425, 479 P2d 1013 (1971); cf., Kernin v. City of Coquille, 143 Or 127, 21 P2d 1078 (1933). There is no disputing evidence of lack of authority of the mayor to sign contracts in general or this contract in particular. We therefore uphold the trial court’s finding.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

568 P.2d 711, 30 Or. App. 1005, 1977 Ore. App. LEXIS 1766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moran-v-city-of-milwaukie-orctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack