Case ID: or_132/html/0362-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "ROSSMAN, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Argued December 12, 1929;
    affirmed March 4, 1930
    STATE OF OREGON ex rel. MACLEAY ESTATE CO. v. FISK
    (285 P. 813)
    
      L. A. Liljegvist of Marshfield and J. C. Johnson of Gold Beach (T. T. Bennett of Marshfield on the brief) for appellant.
    
      Marvin K. Holland of Portland (Carey & Kerr of Portland and Collier H. Buffington of Gold Beach on the brief) for respondent.
   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.