Adams v. Harmon

There was a convenient place where the defendants could have dumped the surplus dirt on plaintiff’s property. Defendants saved themselves the expense of dumping it there by using plaintiff’s dirt to pay Webb for hauling it away to a distant locality. They had no right to do this, and the case comes clearly within the rule laid down by us in Sharkey Co. v. City of Portland, 58 Or. 353 (106 Pac. 331, 114 Pac. 933).

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Rand, O. J., and Coshow and Brown, JJ., concur.