Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

9 Or. 366

Hazard's Appeal

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided March 15, 1881

Oregon Supreme Court · decided 1881-03-15

<p>Appeal from Benton.</p>

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““The whole power of investment and management of these funds is invested, by the constitution and laws, in the governor, secretary of state and state treasurer, as a board, and when the state is not a party to the record, no other officer can rightfully intervene and assume any authority over the subject.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Butterfield v. State Industrial Accident Commission

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1881-03-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently January 1940

3 state decisions

101881189019001910192019301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1By the Court,

Watson, J.:

¶2The only question here is, whether a district attorney has a right to appear in suits or actions growing out of the management of the school and university funds, on behalf of the state, without any authority from the board of commissioners, and claim fees therefor, under section 1041 of the civil code.

¶3We are clearly of the opinion that he has not such right. The whole power of investment and management of these funds is invested, by the constitution and laws, in the governor, secretary of state and state treasurer, as a board, and when the state is not a party to the record, no other officer can rightfully intervene and assume any authority over the subject. The power and responsibility belong exclusively to the board.

¶4*367When the state is a party to the record, as in the case of Ison’s claim for fees (6 Oregon, 465), it would be interested to the extent of costs at least, and the district attorney would be entitled to appear and represent it. But in the present case it is not such a party, and could not in any- event have had any interest of its own in the result; and the general interest of the public in the management and investment of such funds is, as we have already stated, confided to the board of commissioners. The judgment of the circuit court must be affirmed with costs.

¶5Judgment affirmed.

/9/or/366 · .json · Public domain