Daily capital journal. (Salem, Or.) 1896-1899, 1898-09-23
CANNOT Be PAID
$4,000 Warrant and State Land
Purchase Knocked Out.
Final Act in Litigation Of Branch
Asylum Case in Judge Bosses
Court.

The celebrated Eastern Oregon
branch insane asylum warrant, fol
the SUN of s25, 900, will never be paid.
Hon. Il. z. Boise ST., judge presld-
ing, in department two OF the Marion
county court, handed his findings oI
fact in the case, In the following
terms:
"ln the circuit court Of the state OF
Oregon, for the county OF Marion:
"The state Of Oregon, on the rela-
tlon OF James Mccain, district attor-
ney of the third judicial district, plain.
aiff. VS.. Phil Metschan, defendant:
This cause haYing been heard in
the supreme court and returned TO
this court with leave to the defendant
to answer. The answer is filed and
plaintiff demurs.
"The answer alleges ia subs tance
that the board of commissioners OF
public buildings of the state pur-
chased from various parties in Union
county $40 acres of land, on which to
erect branch insane asylum, and re-
ceived deeds therefor, conveying said
land TO the state, and that the state
now has the legal title to said land;
that the warrant for S25, 900 was given
for the entire purchase price of said
land; that the warrant was drawn in
favor Of defendant, who endorsed the
same to W. It. Wright, and said
Wright has paiG the parties making
SAID deeds the full sum Of s25, 900, and
is the lawful owner and holder of said
warrant, that the state is now es-
topped from enjoining the payment OF
said warrant. and it is claimed by the
defendant that the state is now
estOpped from enjoining the payment
Of warrant for the reason that the
state now owns and holds the title TO
the lands for the payment OF (which
the warrant was drawn,
"In considering this demurrer the
court will have first to consider what
was decided by the supreme court,
when the case was before It. In that
court the question was as TO the con-
stitutionality of the act Of the legisla.
ture locating the branch asylum at
d point other than the capital OF the
state; said act was by the supreme
court held to be void, and that the
money appropriated by the legislature
fn tpl Inn nt
legally be applied for that purpose,
and this suit was instituted to enjoln
the payment OF this warrant. The
case was heard In the supreme court
on demurrer to the complaint, and
the questions raised on this demurrer
were not before said court, for no es-
toppel was then pleaded.
"The question now presented to
this court is, can the state hold title
to the land and withhold the price
agreed TO be paid for it by The board.
The supreme court has held In this
case that the act appropriating the
funds against which this warrant is
drawn is void, consequently all acts
OF the board done IN pursuance OF the
act would be without authority and
void. The board prior to the decision
OF the supreme court, we're endeavor-
ing to carry out the provisions of the
act and, as alleged in the answer
purchased this land for the use of
said branch asylum and had the land
conveyed to the state. think that
this court has no authority to overrule
the decision of the supreme court
making the Injunction OF the pay.
ment OF the warrant perpetual. The
object OF this suit was to
enjOln this warrant. The
supreme court holds that the act in
pursuance of which it was issued Is
void, and the court cannot give living
Vitality to a part OF the proceedings
uuder IL. If the state has the title to |