TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State ex rel. Crawford v. Alameda Consolidated Mines Co.

STATE OF OREGON Ex Rel. A. M. CRAWFORD, Attorney General, v. ALAMEDA CONSOLIDATED MINES COMPANY

State ex rel. Crawford v. Alameda Consol. Mines Co., 237 P. 3 (Or. 1925)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Oregon Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 26, 1925
Judges
Belt, Brown
Citations
237 P. 3115 Or. 3731925 Ore. LEXIS 72

Opinion of the Court — Belt

BELT, J.

This is an appeal from an order entered April 1, 1925, setting aside an order, dated January 20th of the same year, vacating the appointment of a receiver for the defendant corporation and' certain proceedings had in reference thereto since December 22, 1924. The appointment was made August 19, 1913, as a result of a suit brought for that purpose by the State of Oregon on the relation of A. M. Crawford as Attorney General and R. A. Watson as Corporation Commissioner of Oregon. The record *374 discloses that the defendant company filed a demurrer to the complaint in the above suit, but no disposition was made of the same. However, the challenge to the sufficiency of the complaint is immaterial in view of the fact that the company, through its attorney of record, consented to the appointment of the receiver in question. Appellant, who is a stockholder in the company and the substituted defendant herein, urges that the complaint in the suit for the appointment of the receiver failed to allege facts sufficient to have authorized the court so to act, and that all proceedings as above stated had in reference to such receivership are null and void. Substantially the same questions were before this court in State ex rel. Crawford v. Almeda Consolidated Mines Co., 107 Or. 18 ( 212 Pac. 789 ), and were decided adversely to appellant therein. In that case this court, speaking through Mr. Justice Rand, refused to vacate and set aside the order of appointment of the receiver, and the reasons given for so holding still obtain. We deem it unnecessary to restate the law announced in the case above cited. Suffice it to say, what was said there is controlling here. The decree of the trial court is affirmed. Aeeirmed. Rehearing Denied.

Brown, J., took no part in the consideration of. this case.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1941: 119412026peak 1941 · 1

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
State ex rel. Crawford v. Almeda Consol. Mines Co., 212 P. 789 (Or. 1923) 9

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list