Clark v. Hood River County
Decision Date | 08 September 1914 |
Citation | 73 Or. 336,143 P. 897 |
Parties | CLARK v. HOOD RIVER COUNTY ET AL. |
Court | Oregon 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:
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:
The notice of special election is in the following words:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hansen v. Malheur County
...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.
...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
... ... other particulars. Clark v. Hood River County, 73 ... Or. 336, 143 P. 897 ... It will ... be ... ...
-
Nicholas v. Yamhill County
... ... 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 ... ...