Lownsdale v. City of Portland
District Court, D. Oregon
U. S. District Court for the District of Oregon—In Equity —Bill for Injunction—Amendment—'Exceptions to Second Amendment—Answer.
1Opinion of the CourtDeady, J.
The complainant alleges that -he is seized, in fee, of lots numbers one, two and three, in block number seventy-four, in the town of Portland, and that he has been so seized, and occupied the same, since the first day of January, 1853. That about'the first day of July, 1860, he commenced to improve said lots, by the erection of wharves and wharf-houses. ■ That he continued said improvements, without let or hindrance from said .defendants', until about the time of filing-his bill in this cause, to wit, November 9th, I860, when the defendants threatened to destroy and remove the same, and did…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Parrott v. StewartOregon Supreme Court · 1913
- De Castello v. City of Cedar RapidsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1915
- Portland Ry., L. & P. Co. v. Oregon CityOregon Supreme Court · 1917
- Mid-Valley Resources, Inc. v. Foxglove Properties, LLPCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2016
- Lang v. PortlandOregon Supreme Court · 1915
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.