State Ex Rel. MacLeay Estate Co. v. Fisk

Oregon Supreme Court

State Ex Rel. MacLeay Estate Co. v. Fisk

285 P. 813, 132 Or. 362, 1930 Ore. LEXIS 208

DecidedDecember 12, 1929

StatusPublished

This text of 285 P. 813 (State Ex Rel. MacLeay Estate Co. v. Fisk) 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

State Ex Rel. MacLeay Estate Co. v. Fisk, 285 P. 813, 132 Or. 362, 1930 Ore. LEXIS 208 (Or. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

ROSSMAN, J.

This proceeding, which prays for an adjudication that the defendant be found guilty of a contempt of court, is similar in all of its essential details to that of state of Oregon on relation of Macleay Estate Go. v. C. H. Bailey this day determined by us. The only distinction between the facts in the two proceedings is that Bailey was not a party to the decree in the suit of Macleay Estate Co. v. Einstoss et al., while Fisk was; that decree constitutes the foundation for both contempt proceedings. In affirming the judgment below we have followed the same reasoning as in State ex rel. Macleay Estate Co. v. Bailey, and therefore it is unnecessary for us to repeat our views in disposing of this cause.

Affirmed.

Coshow, C. J., Bean and Rand, JJ., concur.

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

ROSSMAN, J.

This proceeding, which prays for an adjudication that the defendant be found guilty of a contempt of court, is similar in all of its essential details to that of state of Oregon on relation of Macleay Estate Go. v. C. H. Bailey this day determined by us. The only distinction between the facts in the two proceedings is that Bailey was not a party to the decree in the suit of Macleay Estate Co. v. Einstoss et al., while Fisk was; that decree constitutes the foundation for both contempt proceedings. In affirming the judgment below we have followed the same reasoning as in State ex rel. Macleay Estate Co. v. Bailey, and therefore it is unnecessary for us to repeat our views in disposing of this cause.

Affirmed.

Coshow, C. J., Bean and Rand, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 P. 813, 132 Or. 362, 1930 Ore. LEXIS 208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-macleay-estate-co-v-fisk-or-1929.