Cole v. City of Seaside
Oregon Supreme Court
From Clatsop: James A., Eakin, Judge. Department 1. This is a suit to restrain the defendant city and its officers from enforcing against the plaintiff’s realty an alleged lien claimed by the municipality for the expense of improving what the plaintiff maintains is a county road, in front of his premises, and the city contends is a street within its corporate limits. This is the second appeal in this cause.
Read the full summary
From Clatsop: James A., Eakin, Judge. Department 1. This is a suit to restrain the defendant city and its officers from enforcing against the plaintiff’s realty an alleged lien claimed by the municipality for the expense of improving what the plaintiff maintains is a county road, in front of his premises, and the city contends is a street within its corporate limits. This is the second appeal in this cause. It first came before this court on demurrer to the complaint and the opinion is reported in 80 Or. 72 (156 Pac. 569). After the case was remanded for farther proceedings, an issue of fact…
1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.
1. The demurrer considered in the former opinion admitted the averment of the complaint that the way in question is .a public county road, which, as we decided there on construction of "the legislative charter of Seaside, the city had no jurisdiction to improve. The same doctrine was approved in Christie v. Bandon, 82 Or. 481 (162 Pac. 248), and in Cooper v. Fox, 87 Or. 657 (171 Pac. 408). The law may thus be considered as settled, that although a county road may traverse land within the limits of an incorporated city or town, yet unless the state through its legislative department, or the…
2Cases cited38 opinions
- State v. Port of AstoriaOregon Supreme Court · 1916
- County Commissioners v. City of JacksonvilleSupreme Court of Florida · 1895
- Thurber v. McMinnvilleOregon Supreme Court · 1912
- Schubel v. OlcottOregon Supreme Court · 1912
- City of Corvallis v. CarlileOregon Supreme Court · 1882
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Chapman v. RiverOregon Supreme Court · 1921