Case Name: RUSSELL v. CROOK COUNTY COURT
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1915-03-02
Citations: 75 Or. 168
Docket Number: 
Parties: RUSSELL v. CROOK COUNTY COURT.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 75
Pages: 168–179

Head Matter:
Motion to dismiss appeal denied January 15, 1915.
On the merits argued February 16,
affirmed March 2, 1915.
RUSSELL v. CROOK COUNTY COURT.
(145 Pac. 653; 146 Pac. 806.)
Attorney and Client — Substitution of Attorneys.
1. Attorneys other than those who conducted the proceeding in the trial court for plaintiff, appearing for him in the Supreme Court and moving to dismiss his appeal, not having been substituted as provided by Sections 1086, 1087, L. O. L., will not be recognized.
[As to power of court to investigate authority of attorney appearing in cause, see note in Ann. Cas. 1912C, 1106.]
Appeal and Error — Voluntary Dismissal — Interest of Public.
2. The public being interested, the appeal of plaintiff, in a proceeding to review the action of a County Court in submitting to a vote the creation and establishment of a county, should not be dismissed at his instance, but should be disposed of on the merits; his original attorneys not having withdrawn or consented to such dismissal.
Counties — Establishment—Proceedings—Validity.
3. Under Laws of 1913, page 21, providing for the organization of new counties, the submission at the same election of two propositions to create two new counties out of territory in an existing one does not affect the validity of the creation of one county by the adoption by the voters of one proposition, while the other proposition is defeated.
Counties — Creation of New Counties — Election—Form of Ballot.
4. A form of ballot for the creation of a new cornuu. , called Jefferson, which contained the words “For new county (Jefferson)” and “Against new eounty (Jefferson),” substantially complied with Laws of 1913, page 21, providing for the creation of new counties and a form of ballot containing the words “For new county” and “Against new county.”
[As to validity of statute creating new county, only on ratification of voters within territory affected, see note in Ann. Cas. 1914C, 626.]
Counties — Commissioners—“Sit.”
5. Under Article VII, Sections 11, 12, of the Constitution, authorizing the enactment of a statute for the election of two commissioners to “sit” with the county judge while transacting county business, Section 934, L. O. L., providing that the County Court, when transacting eounty business, shall be held by the eounty judge and two commissioners, or a majority, and Section 941, providing that when, in the transaction of county business, only two of the persons authorized to hold court axe present, and there shall be a disagreement, the same shall be continued until the next term, or until the third person authorized to sit is present, the two persons elected as eounty commissioners may alone transact county business in the absence of the county judge; for the word “sit” means to hold court; to do any act of a judicial nature.
Counties — County Business — County Judge and County Commissioners — Adj ournment.
6. The two commissioners of a eounty authorized by the Constitution and statutes to sit with the county judge while transacting county business may adjourn, in the absence of the county judgoj after there has been an adjournment by operation of law (L. O. L., section 978) because of the absence of the eounty judge, and the two commissioners and the county judge may legally transact county business at the time fixed on the second adjournment.
Counties — Commissioners—Transaction of “County Business.”
7. “County business,” within Article VII, Sections 11, 12, of the Constitution, authorizing the legislature to provide for the election of two commissioners to sit with the eounty judge while transacting county business, and the statute providing for the election of two persons to sit with the eounty judge in the transaction of county business, means all business pertaining to the eounty as a corporate entity, and the legislature may neither limit nor extend the operation of the Constitution, and a proceeding to create a new eounty out of territory of an existing county is county business.
Counties — Commissioners—Transaction of County Business.
8. An order for an election to determine the creation of a new county out of territory of an existing eounty is valid, whether made by the County Court sitting for the transaction of civil or probate business or sitting as a tribunal to transact county business.
From Crook: William L. Bradshaw, Judge.
This is a proceeding by A. D. Bussell against the County Court of Crook County and others. Defendants were successful in the court below, and now move to dismiss appeal.
Motion Denied.
Mr. William H. Wilson, Mr. Lewis H. Irving and Mr. Willard H. Wirtz, for the motion.
Mr. Claude McColloch and Mr. W. P. Myers, contra.
In Banc.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Eakin
delivered the opinion of the court. -
This is a proceeding by writ to review the action of the County Court of Crook County in submit-' ting to the voters of the county the matter of the creation and establishment of Jefferson County, brought here by appeal. The plaintiff A. D. Bussell by attorneys moves to dismiss the appeal, which motion is signed by A. D. Russell, petitioner, and by W. P. Myers and Claude McColloch as petiiioner's attorneys. The proceeding was commenced and conducted in the Circuit Court by M. R. Elliott and TST. G. Wallace, attorneys for plaintiff. The appearance and objects sought to be obtained by Meyers and McColloch are antagonistic to the purposes of plaintiff's original attorneys, and without their concurrence. Sections 1086, 1087, L. O. L., provide how a change or substitution of attorneys may be accomplished. Myers and McColloch have not been substituted or otherwise recognized as attorneys in the case, and under present conditions they cannot be recognized here until regularly substituted or changed. The general rule is that a party to litigation may settle, the case out of court or dismiss a case pending if it works no injury to the attorneys. However, in this case it appears that others than plaintiff are interested in the result to be accomplished, the matter in controversy being one of public interest; and the case should be disposed of on the merits in the interest of the public, as the original attorneys have not withdrawn or consented to such dismissal.
The motion is denied. Denied.