Dallas v. Hallock
Oregon Supreme Court
From Polk: George H. Burnett, Judge. This is an action by the City of Dallas instituted in the exercise of the right of eminent domain to condemn certain rights of way over and upon the premises of the defendant Mary E. Hallock for conducting water from Canyon Creek, a tributary of La Creole Creek, to the City of Dallas ; also a reservoir site and 500,000 gallons of water flowing every twenty-four hours in La Creole Creek for the construction, maintenance, and operation of a…
Read the full summary
From Polk: George H. Burnett, Judge. This is an action by the City of Dallas instituted in the exercise of the right of eminent domain to condemn certain rights of way over and upon the premises of the defendant Mary E. Hallock for conducting water from Canyon Creek, a tributary of La Creole Creek, to the City of Dallas ; also a reservoir site and 500,000 gallons of water flowing every twenty-four hours in La Creole Creek for the construction, maintenance, and operation of a system of waterworks in said city. The complaint sets forth the incorporation of the plaintiff as a municipality, the…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Wolverton
1. It is first insisted that the City of Dallas is without competent authority to institute condemnatory proceedings of the nature here in progress, but it is quite apparent that section 51 of the charter, as amended in 1903 (Sp. Laws 1903, p. 671), confers ample power for the purpose.
2. It is next urged that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, because (1) *251it is not shown that the property and rights sought to be appropriated and condemned are necessary and convenient for the purposes contemplated ; (2) that the city is pro ceeding by resolution, and…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Shoemaker v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Kadderly v. PortlandOregon Supreme Court · 1903
- Secombe v. Railroad Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Ford v. Chicago & North Western Rail RoadWisconsin Supreme Court · 1861
- Railway Co. v. PettySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1893
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- State ex rel. Brislawn v. MeathWashington Supreme Court · 1915
- Straw v. HarrisOregon Supreme Court · 1909
- Moore Mill & Lumber Co. v. FosterOregon Supreme Court · 1959
- State ex rel. Goodman v. StewartMontana Supreme Court · 1920
- Smith v. CameronOregon Supreme Court · 1922
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.