Arment v. Yamhill County
Citation | 28 Or. 474,43 P. 653 |
Parties | ARMENT et al. v. YAMHILL COUNTY. [1] |
Decision Date | 03 February 1896 |
Court | Oregon 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 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-
Public Market Co. v. City of Portland
...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.
... ... 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
...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
...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......