Title: State of Oregon v. Rice

State: oregon

Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court

Document:

Reversed January 11, 1956.
*238 Oscar D. Howlett, Deputy District Attorney, of Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was William M. Langley, District Attorney, of Portland.
Leon W. Behrman, of Portland, argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.
Before WARNER, Chief Justice, and ROSSMAN, LUSK, LATOURETTE and PERRY, Justices.
REVERSED.
PERRY, J.
The defendant was indicted by the grand jury for larceny by embezzlement under ORS 165.005 prior to the statute being amended by chapter 435, Oregon Laws 1955 P. 508.
ORS 165.005, supra, prior to amendment, read as follows:
The charging indictment is as follows:
*240 A demurrer by the defendant to the indictment upon the ground that a crime was not stated was sustained by the trial court, and the state has appealed.
The defendant's contention before the trial court, as here, is that, since the Supercargo and Checkers Local No. 40 is not a person within the purview of the act, he could not be charged as an officer, agent, clerk, or servant, nor could he be charged with the crime of larceny from the association, because as an association it is not a person capable of owning property; citing and relying upon State of Oregon v. Monk, 193 Or 450, 454, 238 P2d 1110, where we said:
1. To determine who is a "person" under the act we must look to paragraph (11) of ORS 161.010, which is as follows:
And for interpretation of a statute we are instructed by the legislature, ORS 174.110, as follows:
But even without the aid of ORS 174.110, supra, it is clear that paragraph (11) of ORS 161.010, supra, re-offers to "persons" in the plural as well as to a "person" in the singular.
2, 3. It is elementary that a person may be the agent, clerk, employe, or servant of a number of individuals as well as of one. "* * * the members of *242 a voluntary association may take and hold jointly as individuals, * * *." 7 CJS 38, Associations § 14.
4, 5. A member "acquires not a severable right to any of its property or funds, but merely a right to the joint use and enjoyment thereof" which the courts will protect. Carpenters Union v. Backman, 160 Or 520, 526, 86 P2d 456. That is, they have a right to sue in regard to matters affecting their interests, which must be brought in the name of all the members. 7 CJS 84, Associations § 35.
6. Thus it must be acknowledged that title and ownership of the property of a voluntary association rests in the individual members, subject only to the right of enjoyment as agreed among themselves. See Commonwealth v. Auman, et al., 13 Pa D&C (1930) 66; Carpenters Union v. Backman, supra.
7. While the indictment, literally read, states that the property taken was "the property of the said Supercargo and Checkers Union Local No. 40," it also states that the named individuals are the members, and, in legal effect, the owners of the property. This, we believe, is fully sufficient to protect the interests of the defendant in preparing his defense and "to plead his acquittal or conviction successfully, should he be again indicted for the same offense."
The judgment of the trial court is reversed.