Bagley v. Bloch

Decision Date06 March 1917
Citation163 P. 425,83 Or. 607
PartiesBAGLEY v. BLOCH ET AL.
CourtOregon Supreme Court

In Banc.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County; Geo. N. Davis, Judge.

Suit by George R. Bagley against Moses Bloch and others. Decree for defendant Multnomah County, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

This is a suit by George R. Bagley against Moses Bloch, Bertha Bloch and Multnomah county, a quasi municipal corporation, to quiet title to real property. The plaintiff, for cause of suit alleges that he is the owner of 12.22 acres of land in Multnomah county, Or., particularly describing the premises that each of the defendants claims to have some right, title or interest in and to such realty, but that the claim of each is void. Multnomah county, alone answering, denied the material averments of the complaint, and for a further defense alleged, in effect, that on March 1, 1909, when the assessment for that year was required to be made as of that date, Melchior Kehrli was the owner of 4.12 acres of land in that county, and Percy H. Blyth was also the owner therein of 33.88 acres, of which latter tract 8.2 acres and all of the former are included within the boundaries of the plaintiff's realty; that the assessor of Multnomah county duly assessed such lands for the year 1909 to the then owners; that based upon such valuation there was extended on the roll valid taxes, which became liens on the premises that these taxes were not paid, and by reason thereof delinquency certificates were issued to the county, which corporation then became and now is the owner and holder thereof. It was further alleged that the suit should be abated, for that the plaintiff had not deposited in court upon filing his complaint, the amount of taxes properly chargeable to such real property. The reply put in issue the allegations of new matter in the answer, and also averred that the attempted assessment of the land for the year 1909 was void, because the description of the realty, as noted on the rolls and in the delinquency certificates, was insufficient, and in consequence thereof no lien was created upon the real property, and no necessity existed for tendering any sum of money whatever as a condition precedent to the right to maintain this suit. The cause was tried upon an agreed statement of facts, which, omitting the signatures of counsel for the respective parties, reads:

"It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the plaintiff and the defendant Multnomah county that the following are the facts in this case, fully proven at the trial thereof:

"(1) That the defendant Multnomah county is a political subdivision of the state of Oregon.

"(2) That the plaintiff is the owner in fee simple and in the actual possession of the following described real estate to wit: That certain tract of land in Multnomah county, state of Oregon, bounded by a line run as follows: Beginning at a point on the half section line running easterly and westerly through section 31, township 1 N., R. 1 E. W. M., 24 chains west of the quarter section corner between sections 31 and 32 in said township and range; thence north 736.25 feet to a point; thence westerly, and parallel to said half section line, 911.3 feet, to the Cornell road; thence southeasterly, along said road, to a point which is 285 feet north of said half section line through section 31; thence easterly along the north line of a certain two-acre tract conveyed to Multnomah county by deed recorded in Book 158 of Records of the said county, at page 453 thereof, 66.05 feet, more or less, to the northeast corner thereof; thence southerly, along the east line of said two-acre tract, 285 feet, to the southeast corner thereof; and thence easterly 629.4 feet, more or less, to the place of beginning.

"(3) That the defendant Multnomah county claims a lien against said land adverse to the title of the plaintiff by virtue of certain tax certificates of delinquency issued for unpaid taxes for the year 1909, described hereafter.

"(4) That on the 1st day of March, 1909, Percy H. Blyth was the record owner of that piece or parcel of land located in Multnomah county, Or., and more particularly described as follows, to wit: Beginning 24 chains west and 285 feet north of the quarter section corner in the east line of section 31, township 1 north, range 1 east Willamette meridian; thence west, 935.1 feet; thence south, 285 feet; thence west, 1,440.9 feet; thence north, 11.11 chains; thence east, 36 chains; thence south, 448.26 feet, to beginning. That on the 1st day of March, 1909, Melchior Kehrli was the record owner of that piece or parcel of land located in Multnomah county, Or., and more particularly described as follows, to wit: Beginning 24 chains west of the quarter section corner between sections 31 and 32, township 1 north, range 1 east Willamette meridian; thence north 89 degrees 22 minutes west, 629.4 feet; thence north 0 degrees 18 minutes west, 285 feet; thence south 89 degrees 22 minutes east, 630.85 feet; thence south, 285 feet, to the place of beginning.

"(5) That thereafter the said Percy H. Blyth conveyed the east 8.2 acres of the above-described land so owned by him to one N. Q. Tanquery, and the plaintiff has by mesne conveyances become the owner in fee thereof; that said east 8.2 acres aforesaid, and said property owned in 1909 by Melchior Kehrli, as aforesaid, comprise the land of the plaintiff described in paragraph 2 of this stipulation.

"(5 1/2) That there is on file in the office of the tax collector of Multnomah county, Or., a book entitled 'Index to Taxpayers for the year 1909,' which book contains an alphabetical index of all taxpayers of the county, and in which reference is made to the holdings of Percy H. Blyth and Melchior Kehrli as follows, to wit: 'Name of taxpayer, Percy H. Blyth; tax roll, page 5009, line 42; block book, page 5749. Name of taxpayer, Melchior Kehrli; tax roll, page 5009, line 43; block book, page 5749.'

"(6) That the assessment tax roll for the year 1909, Multnomah county, Or., on file in the office of the tax collector of said county, contains the following entries with reference to the respective holdings of Percy H. Blyth and Melchior Kehrli, to wit: At tax roll, page 5009, line 42: 'Tax lot No. 3; name of taxpayer, Percy H. Blyth; section 31, township 1 north, range 1 east; No. of acres of land, 33.88; valuation of land, $5,000; total tax, $45.50; No. of receipt, 31540; date of payment, 3/15/10, $34.07; delinquent $11.42; No. of certificate, 242.' Heading, 'Description of Land,' left blank. At tax roll, page 5009, line 43: 'Tax lot No. 4; name of taxpayer, Melchior Kehrli; section 31, township 1 north, range 1 east; No. of acres of land, 4.12; value of land, $600; total tax, $5.46; delinquent $5.46; No. of certificate, 243.' Heading, 'Description of Land,' left blank.

"(7) That there is a book, known as the 'Division Book,' on file in the office of said tax collector, in which appears an entry as follows, to wit: 'Tax roll, page 5009, line 42; Percy H. Blyth, 25.18 acres; N. Q. Tanquery, 8.2 acres.' That the land of the plaintiff is not otherwise attempted to be assessed for said year.

"(8) That there is on file in the office of the county assessor of Multnomah county, Or., a book entitled as follows: '1908-1911. Block Book Acreage North.' That contained in said book are the following entries for the year 1909, to wit: 'Section 31, township 1 N., range 1 E.; tax list No. 3; Beg. 24 chs. W. and 285 minutes N. of 1/4 Sec. Cor. in E. line of Sec. 31; thence W. 935.1 minutes, thence S. 285 minutes, thence W. 1,440.9 minutes; thence N. 11.11 chs., thence E. 36 chs., thence S. 448.26 minutes, to beg.; page 5749; No. acres, 33.88; value of land, $5,000; value of improvements, ______. Section 31, township 1 N., range 1 E.; tax list No. 4; Beg. 24 chs. W. of 1/4 Sec. Cor. between Sect. 31 and 32, thence N. 89 degrees 22 minutes W. 629.4 minutes; thence N. 0 degrees 18 minutes W. 285 minutes; thence S. 89 degrees 22 minutes E. 630.85 minutes; thence S. 285 minutes to beg.; page 5749; No. acres, 4.12; value of land, $600; value of improvements, $_____.' That this so-called Block Book is one of the series of similar books on file in the office of the county assessor of Multnomah county, containing in detail a description of all of the taxable real estate within the county for the years 1908 to 1911.

"(9) That delinquent certificate No. 242 gives the name of the taxpayer as Percy H. Blyth, description of property assessed as 'Tax lot No. 3, section 31, township 1 N., R. 1 E., 8.2 acres, valuation $1,255, tax $11.43, total $18.10,' and no other or further description of land is given in said certificate.

"(10) That delinquent certificate No. 243 gives the name of the taxpayer as Melchior Kehrli, designation of property assessed as 'Tax lot No. 4, section 31, township 1 N., R. 1 E., 4.12 acres, valuation $600, tax $5.46, total tax $8.90,' and no other or further description of said land is given.

"(11) That the county has begun suit for the foreclosure of said certificates Nos. 242 and 243, and has secured a decree accordingly. That said certificates are described in said suit to refer to the following lands, viz.: No. 242, frac. lot 3, sec. 31, T. 1 N., R. 1 E., 8.2 acres. No. 243, lot 4, sec. 31, T. 1 N., R. 1 E., 4.12 acres. That the decree in said foreclosure suit describes the said property in the same manner and decrees the foreclosure of said certificates on the land by the same description.

"(12) That the plaintiff at the time of the commencement of this suit was, and ever since has been, and now is a resident of Hillsboro, Washington county, Or., and was actually in said state; that no summons or other process in said cause...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Elliott v. Clement
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • May 2, 1944
    ...being nullified on account of deficiencies in the manner of service, and that the amendment was induced by the decision in Bagley v. Bloch, 83 Or. 607, 163 P. 425, rendered a short time before the The statute governing notice in the tax proceedings involved in Bagley v. Bloch, supra, provid......
  • Meyers' Estate, In re
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • March 4, 1953
    ...729; Williams et ux. v. Capparelli, 180 Or. 41, 44, 175 P.2d 153; In re Flora's Adoption, 152 Or. 155, 159, 52 P.2d 178; Bagley v. Bloch, 83 Or. 607, 163 P. 425; DeVall v. DeVall, 57 Or. 128, 137, 109 P. 755, 110 P. 705; Non-She-Po v. Wa-Win-Ta, 37 Or. 213, 216, 62 P. 15, 82 Am.St.Rep. The ......
  • Okanogan State Bank of Riverside, Wash. v. Thompson
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • January 9, 1923
    ... ... substantial compliance with the statutory requirements of ... notice to the defendant. Bagley v. Bloch, 83 Or ... 607, 620, 163 P. 425, where earlier Oregon cases are ... collected and cited ... Under ... our ... ...
  • Ashford v. Ashford
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • March 24, 1954
    ...relies upon three prior decisions of this court: Dixie Meadows Independence Mines Co. v. Kight, 150 Or. 395, 45 P.2d 909; Bagley v. Bloch, 83 Or. 607, 163 P. 425; Felts v. Boyer, 73 Or. 83, 144 P. Each of those cases involved a direct attack upon the decree entered in the suit in which the ......
  • 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