Title: STATE EX REL KLEINSORGE v. Reid

State: oregon

Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court

Document:

Alternative writ of mandamus dismissed May 11, 1960.
*559 Wolf D. von Otterstedt, Special Assistant Attorney General, of Eugene, argued the cause for relators. With him on the brief was Robert Y. Thornton, Attorney General, of Salem.
Edwin E. Allen, of Eugene, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Bartle & Allen, of Eugene.
Before McALLISTER, Chief Justice, and LUSK,[*] PERRY, SLOAN, O'CONNELL and CRAWFORD, Justices.
ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED.
McALLISTER, C.J.
This is an original proceeding in mandamus initiated by relators to compel the Honorable Frank B. Reid, a circuit judge for Lane county, to quash the service of summons and dismiss an action filed against relators in the circuit court for Lane county. The relators are the nine members of the State Board of Higher Education and Priscilla K. Johnston Starks, a swimming instructor at Oregon State College.
The proceeding arose out of the following circumstances. Patricia Rae Guiley filed an action in the circuit court for Lane county against the relators to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained by said plaintiff in the swimming pool at Oregon State College as a result of the negligence of the *560 relators. The alleged cause of action arose in Benton county where Oregon State College is located. Summons was served on Priscilla Starks in Benton county. The members of the Board of Higher Education were not individually served but a summons was served on the secretary of the State Board of Higher Education at his office in Lane county.
The relators moved to quash the service of summons on the ground that the venue of said action was not in Lane county but in Benton county where the alleged cause of action arose. Judge Reid denied the motion to quash and the relators then initiated this proceeding.
The relators rely entirely on ORS 14.050, which, insofar as material to this proceeding, reads as follows:
The relators argue that as to the directors of the State Department of Higher Education, the damage action filed in Lane county is an action against public officers on a cause of action that arose in Benton county and that the action should have been commenced in that county.
The respondent argues that the damage action is not an action against a public officer but is an action against the State Board of Higher Education as a corporation *561 created by statute and that venue is controlled by ORS 14.080, which reads as follows:
Respondent contends that the damage action is an action founded on an alleged tort and that under the statutory rule applicable to corporations, the action may be commenced in Lane county where the secretary of the board maintains his office and where he was served with summons.
1. As to the relator Starks, it is clear that if she were the only defendant in the damage action, venue would be in Benton county where the accident occurred and where she resides and was served with summons. However, if under ORS 14.080, the action may, as to her co-defendants, be commenced in Lane county, then venue as to her is also in Lane county.
2, 3. The issue then is whether or not the damage action filed in Lane county is against a public officer within the meaning of ORS 14.050 (2). For a history of our statute, which originated in England in 1623 with the statute of 21 Jac I, ch 12, see 40 Cyc 87, Venue, § 3.
At the outset we note that this court held in Smith v. Patterson, 130 Or 73, 81, 279 P 271, that a director of the State Board of Higher Education was not an *562 officer within the meaning of Oregon Constitution, Art XV, § 2, which provides:
Since that decision was not concerned with venue, we doubt that it is controlling in this case. Members of state boards and commissions are generally regarded as public officers. See 42 Am Jur 901, Public Officers, § 30.
In his answer to the alternative writ of mandamus, respondent alleges that the action filed by Patricia Guiley was against "the corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Oregon composed of R.E. Kleinsorge, Henry F. Cabell, J.W. Forrester, Douglas McKean, William E. Walsh, Charles R. Holloway, Jr., A.S. Grant, Cheryl S. MacNaughton and Allan Hart, as constituting the State Board of Higher Education of the State of Oregon."
The complaint in the damage action, a copy of which was attached to the respondent's answer, contained the following allegation:
It is obvious that Patricia Guiley intended to sue the State Board of Higher Education as a corporate entity and named the individual directors for the purpose of identifying and giving the court jurisdiction over such board as a separate legal entity.
We do not agree with the respondent that the board occupies the same status as a private corporation. We think it does have limited corporate powers and is at least a quasi-corporation which, when it is amenable to suit, may be sued as a corporate entity.
The board was created by Oregon Laws 1929, ch 251, p 256. Section 1 of that act, which is now codified as ORS 351.010, read as follows:
Oregon Laws 1929, ch 251, § 6 provided:
*564 The statute which describes the general powers and duties of the State Board of Higher Education, ORS 351.060, reads in part as follows:
Although we have held in James & Yost v. Board of Higher Edu., 216 Or 598, 340 P2d 577, that the above provision is not a waiver by the state of Oregon of its governmental immunity, we do conclude that when suit or action is authorized, the board may sue or be sued in its corporate name. In the James & Yost case, the board without objection was sued "in its own name and on behalf of the state of Oregon."
ORS 352.240 provides as follows:
The foregoing statute was a part of the act which created the Board of Regents of the State Agricultural College, Oregon Laws 1885, p 10, and apparently served no purpose after the abolition of that board by Oregon *565 Laws 1929, ch 251, p 256, except to define the powers and duties which had been vested in said board and were transferred to the State Board of Higher Education. In compiling the Oregon Revised Statutes, the code revisor substituted "the State Board of Higher Education" in lieu of "a board of regents to be denominated the board of regents of the state agricultural college of the state of Oregon." Without pausing to determine the effect of this substitution, we do point out that the 1885 enactment expressly provided that the predecessor of the State Board of Higher Education "constituted a corporation."
Another statute bearing on our problem is ORS 15.080, providing for the service of summons. Insofar as applicable here, it reads as follows:
This statute appears to be a further legislative recognition that an action may be maintained against a state commission or board as a legal entity. If a public officer was sued as an individual member of a commission or board, it would seem that the court could acquire jurisdiction only by personal service on such officer.
In the action filed by Patricia Guiley summons was served on the secretary of the board and no claim is *566 urged here that such service was not sufficient to give the court jurisdiction over the State Board of Higher Education.
Although the exact legal status of the State Board of Higher Education and its predecessors, the Board of Regents of the University of Oregon and the Board of Regents of the Oregon Agricultural College, has not been well defined, this court has recognized that these boards are vested with corporate powers and have at least a limited corporate status. In Dunn et al. v. State University, 9 Or 357, this court held that the board of directors of the University of Oregon was a corporation. In Liggett v. Ladd, 23 Or 26, 45, 31 P 81, this court made a similar holding as to the Board of Regents of the State Agricultural College. In the latter case the court said:
Since the Liggett and Dunn cases were decided this court has on a number of occasions, limited the effect of the broad statements made therein. For example, in *567 Farrell v. Port of Columbia, 50 Or 169, 91 P 546, 93 P 254, the court said:
In McClain v. Regents of the University, 124 Or 629, 634, 265 P 412, the court further limited the holding in the Dunn case. We quote from the opinion:
In Butterfield v. State Indus. Acc. Com., 111 Or 149, 153, 158, 223 P 941, 226 P 216, in considering the status of that state agency, the court first held that it was a body corporate in the following language:
On rehearing the court said:
In Mohler et ux. v. Fish Commission, 129 Or 302, 305, 276 P 691, the court said in considering the status of that agency:
In the latest case considering the status of the State Board of Higher Education, James & Yost, Inc. v. Board of Higher Edu., supra, this court said:
From a review of our prior decisions we are satisfied that the board as created by statute is an agency of the state vested with limited corporate powers and is best described as a public quasi-corporation. It is not in any sense a private corporation. The legislature has provided that the board in a proper case can sue or be sued in the name of the state of Oregon. We further believe that the action filed by Patricia Guiley was filed against the board as a public quasi-corporation rather than as an action against a group of individual public officers. The board apparently has no office or place of business fixed by statute. It is conceded, however, that the secretary of the board maintains his office in Lane county. We conclude that under these circumstances the circuit court for Lane county had venue of the action.
If, in due course, the action is dismissed as against the board, see Bacon v. Harris, 221 Or 553, 352 P2d *571 472, decided this day, the relator Priscilla Starks will have an opportunity to move for a change of venue to Benton county.
The demurrer filed by relators to respondent's answer to the alternative writ of mandamus is overruled and the alternative writ is dismissed.
[*]  Retired March 15, 1960.