Arment v. Yamhill County

Citation28 Or. 474,43 P. 653
PartiesARMENT et al. v. YAMHILL COUNTY. [1]
Decision Date03 February 1896
CourtOregon Supreme Court

Appeal from circuit court, Yamhill county; George H. Burnett, Judge.

Action by J.A. Arment and another against Yamhill county on a contract for making plats and lists of taxable real estate within the county. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

This is an action to recover upon the following contract, as modified after the date of its execution by the parties thereto, viz "This agreement, made and entered into this 8th day of January, A.D.1891, by and between the county commissioners of Yamhill county, state of Oregon, in regular session assembled, parties of the first part, for and in behalf of said county of Yamhill, state of Oregon, and W.T. Shurtleff J.A. Arment, and Paul A. Ozanne, parties of the second part witnesseth that: Whereas, said parties of the second part have submitted to the commissioners of said county a proposition to furnish said county a list of all the taxable real property lying within its boundaries, and also precinct plats showing the separate tracts and individual ownership thereof, as disclosed by the records of said county; and whereas, said proposition of the parties of the second part has this day been accepted, ratified, and approved by said commissioners, for and in behalf of said county of Yamhill state of Oregon: Now, therefore, be it known that the conditions of this agreement, to which we, the parties of the first part, for and in behalf of said county, and we the parties of the second part, are held and firmly bound, are as follows, to wit: First. The said parties of the second part for and in consideration of the sum of fifty dollars, and in further consideration of the conditions hereinafter mentioned, hereby agree to furnish said county precinct plats of all the taxable real property lying within the boundaries of said county, as at present subdivided into precincts, said precinct plats to show the individual ownership of all the taxable real property lying therein, as disclosed by the records of said county at the date of the delivery thereof; said precinct maps not to include the plat of any town or towns lying therein. Second. Said parties of the second part further agree to furnish said county with a list or roll of all said taxable real property lying within said county, and showing the individual tracts and ownership of the same, as disclosed by said precinct plats; said roll book and indices to same, to be furnished by said county. Third. Said list or roll above mentioned to contain a sufficient description of the real property therein described, so that tax deeds may readily be drawn from said descriptions, if found necessary. Fourth. Said precinct plats and roll to be delivered on or before the first day of September, 1891. Fifth. The parties of the second part, in addition to the consideration first above mentioned, are to receive for compensation for such services the following, to wit: 1st. An amount equal to the levy of the total tax of 1890 on all such taxable real property as shall be found unassessed on or after this date, whether found by the said parties of the second part or otherwise, the usual fee allowed the sheriff of said county for the collection of said tax to be deducted therefrom. 2d. An amount equal to one-half of the levy of the total tax of 1891, as made by the county court of Yamhill county for county purposes, less one-half of the usual fee allowed the sheriff of said county for the collection of said tax. 3rd. The parties of the second part shall further be entitled to receive an amount equal to one-half of all the collectible taxes in arrears for the five years preceding the year 1890 upon all such property as shall hereafter be found unassessed. *** 6th. The assessment upon all real property hereafter found unassessed shall be fairly and equitably made. 7th. The fifty dollars first above mentioned shall be paid to said second party upon the delivery of said precinct plats and assessment roll, and the remaining payments to be made from month to month, as the said tax shall have been collected by the sheriff of said county, and placed to the credit of said parties of the second part." On March 13, 1891, this contract was modified by substituting township for precinct maps. On September 15th, the time for completing the maps and roll was extended to October 1, 1891, and thereafter clause numbered "3rd" was stricken out. In other respects the contract sued upon remained as executed. It appears from the complaint that the plaintiffs found unassessed 65,471 acres of real property and numerous city and town lots within the county, which the sheriff afterwards assessed for the year 1890 at $279,366. The tax levy for the year named was 22 mills on the dollar, which would produce $6,146.05. Deducting the sheriff's fees, $133.31, there would remain a balance of $6,012.74. Of this tax so levied the sheriff has collected about $1,200 the exact amount of which is unknown to plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have been paid out of the general funds of the county $2,022.94, leaving a balance due them on this account of $3,989.80. The tax levy for county purposes for the year 1891 was 4.98 mills on the dollar and the entire levy upon such unassessed lands and town lots was $1,391.24, one-half of which, after deducting the usual fee allowed the sheriff, amounts to $688.67. Of this $385.30 has been paid by the county, leaving a balance...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Public Market Co. v. City of Portland
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • March 9, 1943
    ...render it legal and enforceable rather than void. Keady v. United Railways Co., 57 Or. 325, 100 P. 658, 108 P. 197; Arment v. Yamhill County, 28 Or. 474, 479, 43 P. 653. The City, by its answer, has raised the question of the validity of the contract if construed as a general obligation, an......
  • Olympia Bottling Works v. Olympia Brewing Co.
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • April 5, 1910
    ... ... J., dissenting ... Appeal ... from Circuit Court, Multnomah County; John B. Cleland, Judge ... Action ... by the Olympia Bottling Works against ... Hildebrand v ... Bloodsworth, 12 Or. 75, 80, 6 P. 233; Arment v ... Yamhill County, 28 Or. 474, 479, 43 P. 653; Boykin ... v. Bank of Mobile, 72 ... ...
  • Eagle Industries, Inc. v. Thompson
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • August 3, 1995
    ...Rubber, 270 Or. 71, 75, 526 P.2d 567 (1974); Devereaux v. Cockerline, 179 Or. 229, 240, 170 P.2d 727 (1946); Arment v. Yamhill County, 28 Or. 474, 479, 43 P. 653 (1896). The meaning of disputed text in that context is then determined. Ramsay Signs, Inc. v. Dyck, 215 Or. 653, 657, 337 P.2d 3......
  • Circle K Stores, Inc. v. Zillman
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Oregon
    • October 31, 2011
    ...Rubber, 270 Or. 71, 75, 526 P.2d 567 (1974); Devereaux v. Cockerline, 179 Or. 229, 240, 170 P.2d 727 (1946); Arment v. Yamhill Cnty., 28 Or. 474, 479, 43 P. 653 (1896)). In addition to examination of the text and context, the court may consider “the circumstances underlying the formation of......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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