Wilson v. City of Portland
Oregon Supreme Court
From Multnomah: William N. G-atens, Judge. Statement by Mr. Justice Burnett. In this suit against the City of Portland the plaintiff declares that he is the owner in fee simple of some realty abutting upon the east side of East Twenty-ninth street in that city.
Read the full summary
From Multnomah: William N. G-atens, Judge. Statement by Mr. Justice Burnett. In this suit against the City of Portland the plaintiff declares that he is the owner in fee simple of some realty abutting upon the east side of East Twenty-ninth street in that city. His initiatory pleading recites that by virtue of a certain ordinance passed by the council of that municipality his holding was assessed in certain sums for the cost of improving the half street already mentioned; and further traces the procedure to the point where it is ripe for sale of the property to satisfy the liens so created.…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Burnett
1, 2. Considered solely as a matter of procedure, the motion for a decree on the pleadings in favor of the plaintiff should not have been allowed because there was traversed matter in the city’s answer strongly appealing to a court of equity against granting plaintiff any relief in the premises. The essence of this suit, however, is an attach upon an assessment upon abutting property for the purpose of paying for the improvement of a street. The canon by which said matters must be determined is laid down by Mr. Justice Robert S. Bean in Yamhill County v. Foster, 53 Or. 124 (99 Pac. 286), in…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Yamhill County v. FosterOregon Supreme Court · 1909
- Bennington Lumber Co. v. AttawaySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
- Phipps v. MedfordOregon Supreme Court · 1916
- Lapp v. MarshfieldOregon Supreme Court · 1914
3Cited by2 opinions
- Wagoner v. City of La GrandeOregon Supreme Court · 1918
- Brown v. SllvertonOregon Supreme Court · 1920