Amort v. School Dist. No. 80

Decision Date04 December 1906
PartiesAMORT v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 80 et al.
CourtOregon Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County; William Galloway, Judge.

Writ of review by John Amort against School District No. 80 and others to review the validity of the proceedings of the school district in determining to erect a school building and incurring an indebtedness therefor. From a decree in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed, and writ quashed.

A.M. Cannon and John A. Carson, for appellants.

W.H Holmes, for respondent.

BEAN C.J.

This is a writ of review, challenging the validity of the proceedings of the defendant school district in the matter of the erection of a school building and the incurring of an indebtedness therefor. On February 20, 1906, there was presented to the board of directors a petition signed by a number of the legal voters asking the board to call a special meeting of the electors for the following purposes: First, to erect, complete, and fit for occupancy a new school building upon the site of the present schoolhouse of district No. 80 at a cost of not less than $1,400, nor to exceed $1,700 second, to determine ways and means most desirable for securing the funds for this purpose. On February 22d, the prayer of the petitioners was granted, and the clerk was instructed by the board to post notices calling a meeting of the electors and stating the purposes thereof for Monday March 5th, at 1:30 o'clock p.m., and the record recites "Pursuant to the foregoing order of the board of directors, the clerk of the district prepared and posted in three public places within the boundaries of said district, more than ten days prior to the date of said meeting on March 5, 1906, a notice of said special school meeting, which was read at the said meeting of March 5, 1906, by the clerk, and which was and is in words and figures as follows, to wit." A meeting of the electors was held at the time and place specified in the notice and it was voted to erect a new school building as proposed therein and to issue warrants therefor at the best rate of interest obtainable, not to exceed 7 per cent. per annum, such warrants to be paid from the tax levy of 1906. On April 10, 1906, the clerk was authorized and instructed by the board to post notices as provided by law, inviting subscriptions from the bona fide residents of the district to the amount of $800 for the purpose of proceeding with the erection of the schoolhouse. On June 6, 1906, at a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Wallis v. Crook County School Dist.
    • United States
    • Oregon Court of Appeals
    • April 23, 1973
    ...provisions do not apply to nonjudicial proceedings. Chung Yow v. Hop Chong, et al., 11 Or. 220, 4 P. 326 (1884); Amort v. School District, 48 Or. 522, 87 P. 761 (1906); Nicolai-Neppach Co. v. Poore et al., 120 Or. 163, 251 P. 268 (1926) (Partially overruled on other grounds Copeland Yards v......
  • Keeler Bros. v. School Dist. No. 108, Clackamas County
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • February 4, 1919
    ... ... It might ... have been sufficient to have this appear in the records of ... the meeting, as was done in Amort v. School Dist., ... 48 Or. 522, 524, 87 P. 761, in which case the court said: ... "There is no statute requiring the proof of such ... ...
  • Setterlun v. Keene
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • December 4, 1906
    ... ... directors of a school district, to recover damages for having ... been denied the right to ... ...
  • City of Portland v. Richardson
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • November 27, 1928
    ... ... beyond question. Amort v. School Dist., 48 Or. 522, ... 87 P. 761. See, also, Simpson v ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT