TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Irwin v. Kincaid

Irwin v. Kincaid, 49 P. 765 (Or. 1897)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Oregon Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
August 9, 1897
Judges
Wolverton
Citations
49 P. 76531 Or. 4781897 Ore. LEXIS 65
Disposition
Reversed.
Headnotes
Mandamus — Secretary oe State — Examination op Claims. — Under Hill’s Ann. Laws, f 2848, providing that the secretary of state shall cause to be printed blank assessment rolls and other forms; and § 2208, subdivision 7, requiring him to examine the claim therefor, and to draw his warrant for it, if correct, — mandamus will issue to compel him to act, but not to direct how or to what effect he shall act; since, in passing on the quality of the work and materials, reasonableness of the charge, etc., he must exercise his discretion and judgment : Croasman v. Kincaid, 31 Or. 445, applied.
Summary
From Marion: Henry H. Hewitt, Judge. Mandamus by the Irwin-Hodson Company to compel Harrison R. Kincaid, secretary of state, to audit a claim, and draw his warrant for it. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Wolverton

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Mr. Justice Wolverton

delivered the opinion.

This case involves the question whether the secretary of state ought to be required to audit and allow and draw his warrant upon the treasurer for $221.50, the amount of a certain claim in favor of plaintiff which is for ruling and binding thirty-three volumes of assessment and tax rolls and ruling recapitulation sheets, at the instance and request of the secretary. *479 He is authorized to incur the expense by section 2848, Hill’s Ann. Laws, which is as follows: “The secretary of state shall from time to time, as he may deem proper, cause to be printed blank assessment rolls and other forms for proceedings required by this chapter, and shall transmit the same, together with such instructions as he shall think useful, to the several county clerks in this state, who shall distribute the same to the assessors of their several counties.” The duty to examine and determine the claim and to draw his warrant therefor is imposed by section 2208, subdivision 7, discussed and construed in Shattuck v. Kincaid, 31 Or. 379 ( 49 Pac. 758 ), but the act required is one involving the exercise of discretion and judgment. He must satisfy himself touching the quality of the work and materials furnished, and determine upon the reasonableness of the charge, or whether in accord with the contract, if any. The writ of mandamus can therefore only require that he act in the premises, not direct how or to what effect he shall act, and is governed in all material concerns by the rules of law ascertained and applied in the case of Croasman v. Kincaid, 31 Or. 445 ( 49 Pac. 764 ), just decided, and the order will be the same here as in that case.

K.BVBRSBD.

How later courts describe this case

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

1916: 11923: 119162026peak 1916 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re Clark154 P. 748 (Or. 1916)
  2. Trippeer v. Couch220 P. 1012 (Or. 1923)

Most recent

  1. Trippeer v. Couch220 P. 1012 (Or. 1923)
  2. In re Clark154 P. 748 (Or. 1916)

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Shattuck v. Kincaid, 49 P. 758 (Or. 1897) 36
Croasman v. Kincaid, 49 P. 764 (Or. 1897) 5

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