James v. City of Newberg
Oregon Supreme Court
From Yamhill: H. H. Belt, Judge. In Banc. This is a suit to restrain the defendants from assessing plaintiffs’ property for street improvement purposes. The plaintiffs own Lot 2, Block 8, Deakin’s Addition to Newberg, no part of which abuts upon Garfield Street, but which is separated from that street by Lot 1 of the same block. The defendant City of Newberg, a municipal corporation, contracted to pave Garfield Street.
Read the full summary
From Yamhill: H. H. Belt, Judge. In Banc. This is a suit to restrain the defendants from assessing plaintiffs’ property for street improvement purposes. The plaintiffs own Lot 2, Block 8, Deakin’s Addition to Newberg, no part of which abuts upon Garfield Street, but which is separated from that street by Lot 1 of the same block. The defendant City of Newberg, a municipal corporation, contracted to pave Garfield Street. From the record before us, it appears that the council of the City of Newberg passed a resolution adopting plans and specifications for the improvement of Garfield Street from…
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.
1. The one question presented for decision is, whether or not the terms “sidewalk” and “pavement,” as used in the proviso found in Section 110 of the charter of the City of Newberg, are exact synonyms. The proviso reads:
“Provided, that all assessment for the cost of building or repairing any sidewalk or pavement shall be upon the. property immediately adjacent to or abutting thereon, and for the full price of constructing or repairing such sidewalk or pavement.”
2. The defendants contend that the words “sidewalk” and “pavement,” as used in the above proviso, mean the same thing, and that that…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- United States v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Zeckendorf v. JohnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Central Life Assurance Society of the United States v. City of Des MoinesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1919
- Muff v. CameronMissouri Court of Appeals · 1908
- Salisbury v. AndrewsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1837
3Cited by14 opinions
- Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers, Inc. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- State Ex Rel. Smith v. SmithOregon Supreme Court · 1953
- State Land Board v. NortinOregon Supreme Court · 1945
- Pense v. McCallOregon Supreme Court · 1966
- Stowe v. RyanOregon Supreme Court · 1931
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.