Court Opinion

ID: 9854821
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:14:37.433616+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:27.363636
License: Public Domain

DENECKE, J.,
dissenting.
The legislature required the counties to establish a county school fund and to levy taxes sufficient to pay into such fund an amount equal to $10 per child living in the county. OES 328.005; Oregon Laws 1899, p 223, § 22. Shortly thereafter the legislature also authorized the payment of federal forest reserve funds to the county and obligated the county to place 25 per cent of those funds in the county school fund. OES 294.060; Oregon Laws 1907, ch 160, § 1, p 310.
I view the question to be as follows:
Is it reasonable to conclude that the legislature, without specifically so stating, intended that the obligation it placed upon the county to pay annually into the county school fund an amount equal to $10 per each child in the county could be satisfied in whole or in part by the county paying into the county school fund moneys paid to it by the state which the legislature had previously obligated the counties to pay into the county school fund; or is it more reasonable to conclude that the legislature did not intend that such already-earmarked funds could be so used?
I am of the opinion that the most reasonable conclusion is that the legislature did not intend that such already-obligated moneys could be used to offset a county obligation to the same fund for which the other moneys had already been obligated.
O’Connell, J., joins in this dissent.