History
  • No items yet
midpage
Leick v. Beers
28 Or. 483
Or.
1896
Check Treatment

Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice Bean.

1. The court below held the lien insufficient because it states that C. Yf. Beers was the owner of the property and not the reputed owner thereof, and there is respectable authority to support the ruling: McElwee v. Sandford, 53 How. Pr. 89; Malter v. Falcon Mining Company, 2 Pac. 50. But it is unnecessary for us to place our decision upon that ground as the lien is clearly insufficient within Rankin v. Malarkey, 23 Or. 593, (32 Pac. 620, 34 Pac. 816,) and Dillon v. Hart, 25 Or. 49 (34 Pac. 817).

*4852. The refusal of a trial court to allow costs to either party in a suit iu equity will not be reviewed here except iu case of an abuse of discretion which is not shown in this case: Code, § 548; Lovejoy v. Chapman, 23 Or. 571 (32 Pac. 687); Cole v. Logan, 24 Or. 305 (33 Pac. 568). The decree of the court below is affirmed. Affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Leick v. Beers
Court Name: Oregon Supreme Court
Date Published: Feb 3, 1896
Citation: 28 Or. 483
Court Abbreviation: Or.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.