City of Portland v. Metzger
Oregon Supreme Court
From Multnomah: William; N. Gatens, Judge. Statement by Mr. Chief Justice Eakin. By authority of an act of the legislative asembly of date November 25, 1885 (Sp. Sess.
Read the full summary
From Multnomah: William; N. Gatens, Judge. Statement by Mr. Chief Justice Eakin. By authority of an act of the legislative asembly of date November 25, 1885 (Sp. Sess. Laws 1885, p. 97), plaintiff constructed, during the years of 1890 to 1894, a pipe line and water system from the head waters of Bull Run River northwesterly to the city of Portland, a distance of about 40 miles, for the purpose of supplying the people of the city with water, and for fire protection, etc., at an expense of more than $1,500,000; that among other rights of way acquired therefor plaintiff, on October 15, 1891,…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Eakin.
1. The question for consideration is to determine the extent and character of plaintiff’s rights under the deed. There is very little dispute as to the facts. The grant in the deed is a right of way 33 feet wide, through and across the tract of land owned by the grantors, for the purpose of conveying water to the city of Portland by a pipe or pipes, conduit or conduits. There are three provisos in the deed, two of which are limitations upon plaintiff’s use of the way. The first proviso relates only to the depth of the trenches for the pipes. The second…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hodges v. Western Union Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1903
- American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. PearceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1889
- Western Union Telegraph Co. v. RichSupreme Court of Kansas · 1878
3Cited by1 opinion
- Tone v. Tillamook CityOregon Supreme Court · 1911