Arstill v. Fletcher
Oregon Supreme Court
From Tillamook: George E. Bagley, Judge. Department 1. The individual defendants are the supervisors and contractor of the corporate defendant, the Big Nestucca Drainage District. The plaintiff owns a quarter-section of land in Tillamook County in the territory controlled by the Drainage District.
Read the full summary
From Tillamook: George E. Bagley, Judge. Department 1. The individual defendants are the supervisors and contractor of the corporate defendant, the Big Nestucca Drainage District. The plaintiff owns a quarter-section of land in Tillamook County in the territory controlled by the Drainage District. In the first complaint filed it is said that: “In the exercise of its said jurisdiction, the said drainage district acting by and through the defendant directors, on or about the first day of April, 1918, laid out and established a system of drainage ditches in said district, had the same duly…
1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.
1. Opposing the filing of the amended complaint, the defendants argued that the original complaint stated a cause of action substantially for trespass and the amended complaint sets forth a breach of contract giving rise to damages. In our judgment, the contention of the defendants in this respect is unsound. It is said in the original complaint that the ditch in question was duly located, surveyed and established over and within the land of the plaintiff. The allegation of the second complaint is substantially the same. The effect of the two pleadings is identical. Both plainly point out…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Giaconi v. City of AstoriaOregon Supreme Court · 1911
- John P. Sharkey Co. v. City of PortlandOregon Supreme Court · 1911
- Hamby v. City of Dawson SpringsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1907
3Cited by4 opinions
- Yates v. LargeOregon Supreme Court · 1978
- Shainwald v. City of PortlandOregon Supreme Court · 1936
- Pearson v. Twohy Bros.Oregon Supreme Court · 1924
- Barber Lumber Co. v. GiffordIdaho Supreme Court · 1914