Title: Andrews v. City of Corvallis
Citation: 200 Or. 632, 268 P.2d 361
Docket Number: N/A
State: Oregon
Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court
Date: March 17, 1954

Affirmed March 17, 1954.
F. Ernest Ayers, of Corvallis, argued the cause and filed a brief for appellant.
Richard Mengler, of Corvallis, argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.
Before LATOURETTE, Chief Justice, and WARNER, ROSSMAN and PERRY, Justices.
AFFIRMED.
PERRY, J.
The appellant Adelbert Bradford Andrews, hereinafter called the plaintiff, was convicted of a misdemeanor *633 in the municipal court of the city of Corvallis, and, after sentence was passed, filed in the circuit court of the state of Oregon for Benton county a petition for a writ of review. The material part thereof necessary to this opinion and the decision of the circuit court reads as follows:
On this petition a writ was issued directed to the municipal judge of the city of Corvallis, and the defendant thereupon moved to quash the writ of review and simultaneously filed therewith its return to the writ. The motion to quash was sustained by the trial court, and from this ruling the plaintiff has appealed.
The sole question for determination in this court is whether or not the petition for writ of review is sufficient to authorize the issuance of the writ.
1. A petition for a writ of review must state facts sufficient to authorize the issuance of the writ. We can look only to the petition to ascertain the authority of the higher court to issue the writ, and reference to the return cannot be had to supply omissions of the petition. Southern Oregon Co. v. Coos County, 30 Or 250, 47 P 852.
In Southern Oregon Co. v. Coos County, supra, at page 257, we said:
2. It is readily seen that the petition for the writ of review set forth above states solely the conclusions of the petitioner. No facts are alleged.
The plaintiff's petition for the writ being insufficient to authorize the issuance of the writ by the trial court, the motion to quash was properly sustained.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.