*1 304
guaranty liability did not it from relieve as it contracting against negligence. cluded from its own apples On the other hand, if when received shipment inherently were and their condi- defective tion time of at arrival at destination was reason company the defendant thereof, would not be liable guaranty superfluous. and the letter of would be tending Plaintiff offered evidence show this only apples letter referred to two boxes of which were recoopered, which no claim was mаde. judgment of the lower court is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial. Rehearing De-
Reversed Remanded. nied. J., J., concur. C.
Coshow, Bean, Brown, J.,
Argued May 31, 11, rehearing affirmed June September 17, M.W. DAVIS I. H. VAN WINKLE, v.
General, et al. 91; Pac. *2 petitioner plaintiff For was there a brief the names Mr. W. Lair Thompson, Mr. James of over Mr. E. K. B. Kerr Opрenheimer, with oral an Mr. L. Martin Pipes. argument respondents there For was a brief and oral argu- I.Mr. H. Van Winlde, Attorney General, ments Mr. pro. per., Clarence E. Yeager. COSHOW, This an appeal from the J. General’s rule on a ballot title for House enаcted 330, Bill No. by for legislature, of providing two purpose additional circuit judges Judicial Fourth District of State of Oregon, comprising Multnomah A County. petition to refer Attor- Tbe been filed. duly to tbe has
said bill as bill tbe tbe of purpose described ney Genеral of additional provide “To two follows: tbe Oregon tbe tbe State Circuit Court Multnomah District, comprising Fourth Judicial taken оr be objection bas been could No County.” bill as to of tbe tbe purpose tbe statement objec- Tbe tbe learnеd pared by General. short which is as follows: tion is tbe ballot title Tbe Additional Bill.” intent Judges “Two Circuit tbe law is to short sufficient prepаre a title tbe identify attract tbe attention of tbe and to voter, legis- bill tbe ballot with tbe law enacted tbe on lature. wоuld person be difficult for any prepare a short ballot title free from Different peo- criticism. at look from differеnt ple everything angles. slightly A short ballot title not supposed substitute *3 title tbe for tbe bill. It is means identifying for measure tbe referred or if initiаted and is sufficient it that. Tbe passed does bill only by legisla- the last ture two is one providing judges additional tbe referred as Bill described House Tbe No. 330. title prepared short tbe Attorney General only is not It misleading. is fair. It refer can to legislature one of tbe was no other act because there in tbe any part act two state. providing tbe expressed petitiоn bill as The tbe purpose those solicited to tbe sign petition. informs fully that tbe titles insufficient is are because urged sought legislаture tbe act of tbe they allude language a bill. In this as tbe referred followed strictly General bas tbe learned Tbe 1. Art. IV, § tbe stаte: tbe Constitution designates in tbe statute out also set petition model to be referred a as sought of tbe legislature the act L., bill: Or. In 4095. fact the enacted § measure by the legislature, is referred people, which to the is not a law. unless It will nevеr become lawa a majority of bill upon voters voting the referred vote in favor of bill. the the The bill enacted legislature does not become until operative ninety adjournment after Dur- days legislature. ing period if is it it referred people, again reduced to a bill.
Other matters are The petition. discussed in the only thing properly here, sufficiency however, of the titles. We decline to review other matters ably argued by appellant. titles as certified by the learned Attorney General are affirmed will be certified to the Secretary of as required State Laws, General p. 323, Chapter 255.
Affirmed. J., Brown,
Rehearing September 17, Rehearing. On Petition Mr. Martin For Pipes, L. Mr. James petition, Mr. Lair Thompson B. W. and Mr. Kerr, Eugene K. Oppenheimer.
Cоntra, Mr. I. E. Ycm Winkle, General, Yeager. and Mr. Clarence E. *4 has
Plaintiff a presented petition rehearing supported by very logical and convincing argument. the are repetitions Most of contentions argu the ment If in chief. the matter of arranging petitions legis- procedure referring of the acts other by regulated petition by were
lature the voters accept the hesitation could without we courts, the plaintiff. presented by the ably No doubt views so by prepared “Bill” in the title to as act referred a completed fin- learned General a the legislative assembly con- the act so far as ished рassed the House introduced The Bill as cerned. by proper presiding signed offi- the into an Act when question But now and the Govеrnor. the cers angle measure from the is the name the sented petition referring the act The the voter. by peoрle being passed the the act as sufficient the legislature law until does not become effective as a passеd by The been also. it have the shall important. no terms is not There can matter of be “Bill” because the measure is called a confusion an accurate technical would a term be when more “Act.” open matter is not to doubt beсause the by legislature prepared the refers to meas
form the duty the the a Bill. was Gen ure as language of the statutе which the he eral follow argument According to the of the learned done. has large attorney percentagе plaintiff his a know difference an would not the between voters being “Bill.” That the case such can “Act” and by applied the term measure. be misled not misled because the will will not be Others clearly the measure was referred to state § peоple: L., Or. any governmental body by referred “Measures heading designated ‘Referred to shall governmental body) (here ’;
people measures name designated petition shall be referred *5 ** ” people’; ‘Referendum ordered by petitiоn Or. L., §
The court must notice judicial required take form of the ballot. the number submitting Over Bill will be the two additional providing, legend: “Referendum by petition ordered of the peo- ple.” There can be no of the initiative confusion with the referendum. In the light require- of these ments any person desiring to be informed about how cast his ballot cannot be misled the short title.
Petition denied.
Brown, J., Argued September 25, 1928, January 22, rehearing reversed September 17, 1929. YAMHILL ELECTRIC COMPANY v. CITY OF
McMINNVILLE et al. 118; 280 Pac.