Dix v. Port of Port Orford

CourtSupreme Court of Oregon
Writing for the CourtBELT, J.
Citation131 Or. 157,282 P. 109
Decision Date19 November 1929
PartiesDIX ET AL. v. PORT OF PORT ORFORD ET AL.

282 P. 109

131 Or. 157

DIX ET AL.
v.
PORT OF PORT ORFORD ET AL.

Supreme Court of Oregon, En banc.

November 19, 1929


Appeal from Circuit Court, Curry County; J. T. Brand, Judge.

Suit by George E. Dix and others against the Port of Port Orford and others. Decree for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Reversed and rendered.

[131 Or. 158] J. C. Johnson, of Gold Beach, for appellants.

BELT, J.

The defendant port of Port Orford appeals from a decree enjoining it from selling or conveying certain dock and wharfage property to the Inman Lumber & Development Company pursuant to the terms of a written contract. The case is submitted[131 Or. 159] [282 P. 110.] solely on the brief of appellant, although it involves principles of grave importance to the public, if not the plaintiffs. In many jurisdictions the failure of respondent to file a brief is looked upon as a confession of error. 3 C.J. 1446. Under the rules of this court, it is a waiver of the right to be heard. Johnson v. White, 60 Or. 611, 112 P. 1083, 119 P. 769.

In 1919, the defendant port of Port Orford, a municipal corporation, was organized pursuant to and by virtue of chapter 3 of title XLI, Or. Laws. Its primary object and purpose as declared in the act was to promote "maritime shipping and commercial interest of such corporation." Section 7163, par. 7. From the proceeds of a bond issue of $55,000 authorized by vote of the people, the board of commissioners of the port purchased a dock site and thereafter erected a wharf where a toll was charged for goods and commodities shipped to or from the port. At the time the port engaged in this commercial enterprise, Curry county was a comparatively isolated section of the state, and there was grave need of establishing communication with the business world. The day of good roads had not yet dawned. A few years later, however, the wonderful Roosevelt Highway was completed in the northern part of Curry county. As a result, the business of the port materially decreased. In fact, trucks invaded the field of transportation to such an extent that the revenues of the port were not sufficient to cover maintenance and operating expenses. Taxes on account of bond issue became a vexatious burden. By reason of statutory limitation of indebtedness, additional funds could not be secured to repair or improve greatly impaired docking facilities. The situation became so acute that the board of commissioners, in April, 1927, entered into a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
  • Hillman v. Northern Wasco County People's Utility Dist.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • March 26, 1958
    ...of governmental immunity from tort liability was not raised by the defendant. In the still later case of Dix v. Port of Port Orford, 131 Or. 157, 282 P. 109, which involved the right of the port district to sell dock and wharfage property, it was held that the defendant port district in the......
  • Brusco Towboat Co. v. State, By and Through Straub, Nos. 412016
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • December 27, 1978
    ...upon whether they are owned in a proprietary rather than a governmental capacity as was assumed in, for example, Dix v. Port Orford, 131 Or. 157, 282 P. 109 In ORS 777.120(1) each port is granted "full control of all bays, rivers and harbors within its limits, and [284 Or. 649] between......
  • Seltenreich v. Town of Fairbanks, No. 6926.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Alaska
    • March 4, 1952
    ...103 F. Supp. 325 or private character as distinguished from a governmental character." In Dix et al. v. Port of Port Orford et al., 131 Or. 157, 282 P. 109, at page 110(2-4), it is stated: "As a general rule, the power of a municipality to convey property is equal to its power to ......
  • Hise v. City of North Bend
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • December 8, 1931
    ...and levied wharfage charges, it was exercising a purely corporate, proprietary, or private function. Dix v. Port of Port Orford, 131 Or. 157, 282 P. 109; Bennett v. City of Portland, 124 Or. 691, 265 P. 433; Mackay v. Commission of Port of Toledo, 77 Or. 611, 152 P. 250; Esberg Cigar Co. v.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
  • Hillman v. Northern Wasco County People's Utility Dist.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • March 26, 1958
    ...of governmental immunity from tort liability was not raised by the defendant. In the still later case of Dix v. Port of Port Orford, 131 Or. 157, 282 P. 109, which involved the right of the port district to sell dock and wharfage property, it was held that the defendant port district in the......
  • Brusco Towboat Co. v. State, By and Through Straub, Nos. 412016
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • December 27, 1978
    ...upon whether they are owned in a proprietary rather than a governmental capacity as was assumed in, for example, Dix v. Port Orford, 131 Or. 157, 282 P. 109 In ORS 777.120(1) each port is granted "full control of all bays, rivers and harbors within its limits, and [284 Or. 649] between......
  • Seltenreich v. Town of Fairbanks, No. 6926.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Alaska
    • March 4, 1952
    ...103 F. Supp. 325 or private character as distinguished from a governmental character." In Dix et al. v. Port of Port Orford et al., 131 Or. 157, 282 P. 109, at page 110(2-4), it is stated: "As a general rule, the power of a municipality to convey property is equal to its power to ......
  • Hise v. City of North Bend
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • December 8, 1931
    ...and levied wharfage charges, it was exercising a purely corporate, proprietary, or private function. Dix v. Port of Port Orford, 131 Or. 157, 282 P. 109; Bennett v. City of Portland, 124 Or. 691, 265 P. 433; Mackay v. Commission of Port of Toledo, 77 Or. 611, 152 P. 250; Esberg Cigar Co. v.......
  • 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