Clark v. Hood River County

Decision Date08 September 1914
Citation73 Or. 336,143 P. 897
PartiesCLARK v. HOOD RIVER COUNTY ET AL.
CourtOregon Supreme Court

In Banc.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hood River County; W. L. Bradshaw, Judge.

Suit by W. L. Clark against Hood River County and others. From a decree for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

This is a suit brought to enjoin the county court of Hood River county, Ore., from issuing and delivering $75,000 permanent road bonds to S. Benson, the purchaser thereof, which bonds are attempted to be issued in pursuance of a special election held in said county on the 15th day of July, 1914. The proceedings are admitted to be regular, excepting the petition for the election and the notice of the election which, it is claimed, are irregular, and render the proposed bond issue void. It is contended by the appellant: (1) That the petition for the election is defective, in that it does not comply with section 3, c. 103, Laws of 1913, in stating the length of time the bonds shall run; that the language therein, in this particular, is ambiguous, and is as follows:

"To run for a period of 20 years and bear interest at the rate of 5 per cent. per annum. To be redeemed one-tenth annually beginning at the end of the tenth year."

It will be noted: That 10 annual payments beginning at the end of the tenth year would all mature within 19 years, and hence the language is inconsistent and repugnant to the first statement that they are to "run for a period of 20 years." (2) That the western terminus of the proposed road to be improved is indefinite, as no road has been built or officially adopted by the county known as "Columbia River Highway," and the same can only be located by a resort to the maps submitted to the board of county commissioners by the State Highway Commission, or an inspection of the records of the said State Highway Commission. (3) That the notice of election is defective in attempting to describe the maturity of the bonds therein, the language being ambiguous, contradictory, repugnant, and uncertain, and is as follows: "To mature in twenty years, one-tenth to be redeemed annually at the end of the tenth year." That said defects are so vital that no power is conferred upon the board of county commissioners, by the election which followed, to incur any indebtedness exceeding $5,000 for permanent road construction; hence the bond issue herein sought to be enjoined is ultra vires and void. The petition for the election is as follows:

"To the Honorable County Court, Hood River County, State of Oregon: We the undersigned registered voters of Hood River county, Oregon, respectfully petition that you call a special election for the purpose of submitting to the voters of this county the question of issuing bonds to provide for the construction of a permanent road in this county, to the amount of $75,000, to run for a period of twenty years, and bearing interest at the rate of five per cent. per annum; to be redeemed one-tenth annually beginning at the end of the tenth year. The money raised from the aforesaid bond issue is to be expended in the opening, construction, and improving the Columbia River Highway, between the westerly boundary of Hood River county and the town of Viento so as to connect existing roads to afford continuous wagon travel through Hood River county."

The notice of special election is in the following words:

"Notice of special election. For issuing road bonds for Hood River county. Notice is hereby given, that on the 15th day of July, 1914, at the polling place in the precinct of ______ a special election will be held in Hood River county Oregon, to determine whether the county court shall issue bonds of said county to provide for permanent road construction to the amount of $75,000, to mature in twenty years, one-tenth to to be redeemed annually at the end of the tenth year, no more than $75,000 to be issued in any one year, and to bear interest at the rate of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Hansen v. Malheur County
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • 31 Enero 1939
    ...any such construction. 12. Mere irregularities are cured by the order of the court declaring the result of the election: Clark v. Hood River Co., 73 Or. 336, 143 P. 897; Elliott v. Tillamook Co., 86 Or. 427, 168 P. In Clark v. Hood River Co., supra, the question was considered as to the eff......
  • Witham v. McNutt et al.
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • 12 Julio 1949
    ...and then said: "In Roesch v. Henry the rigor of the rule laid down in the preceding cases was somewhat modified." In Clark v. Hood River County, 73 Or. 336, 143 P. 897, the question concerned the validity of the notice of election but related only to the contents of the notice and not to th......
  • Elliott v. Tillamook County
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • 26 Octubre 1917
    ... ... other particulars. Clark v. Hood River County, 73 ... Or. 336, 143 P. 897 ... It will ... be ... ...
  • Nicholas v. Yamhill County
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • 17 Enero 1922
    ... ... district No. 38 is composed entirely of an island in the ... Willamette river known as Athey's Island, and the tax ... mentioned was levied to pay the accruing interest ... matter." This order cured all mere irregularities in the ... proceedings. Clark v. Hood River County, 73 Or. 336, ... 143 P. 897 ... The ... remaining ... ...
  • 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