Bagley v. Bloch
Decision Date | 06 March 1917 |
Citation | 163 P. 425,83 Or. 607 |
Parties | BAGLEY v. BLOCH ET AL. |
Court | Oregon 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:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Elliott v. Clement
...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
...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
... ... 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
...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 ......