Drainage Dist. No. 4 OF WASHINGTON COUNTY v. Crow

• Decision Date: 30 April 1891
• Citation: 26 P. 845,20 Or. 535
• Parties: DRAINAGE DIST. NO. 4 OF WASHINGTON COUNTY v. CROW.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

26 P. 845

20 Or. 535

DRAINAGE DIST. NO. 4 OF WASHINGTON COUNTY v. CROW.

Supreme Court of Oregon

April 30, 1891

Appeal from circuit court, Washington county; FRANK J. TAYLOR Judge.

This is an action to recover a tax of $10.30, commenced before a justice of the peace of Washington county. The grounds upon which plaintiff seeks a recovery are stated in its complaint substantially as follows: That plaintiff has been and is now a drainage district, duly organized and existing under the laws of Oregon providing for the drainage of lands in Washington county, Or., said drainage district being organized for the purpose of clearing Dairy creek and Lousignot lake, in said county and state, of driftwood and other obstructions, to the full flowage of water in the channels of said streams. That the defendant is and was during the year 1889, the owner of 63 acres of land lying within the boundaries of said drainage district, being subject to overflow, and of the assessed value of $588. That during the year 1887 the supervisor of drainage of said district performed certain labor and expended moneys in hiring labor in clearing the obstructions, as aforesaid, from the channels of said streams, and charged up the cost of such work to said district, and the lands lying therein, and said charges are made in proportion to the assessed value of said lands, to-wit, 1 3/4 cents on the dollar on the assessed value of said lands. That the amount so charged against the lands of the defendant herein was $10.30, and that said supervisor of drainage duly reported his proceedings as such including the charge against the lands of defendant, to the regular meeting of the land-owners of said district held March 5, 1888, and said charges were approved and found to be correct by said meeting. That a copy of said supervisor's report, and a synopsis of the proceedings of said meeting were thereafter duly filed with the clerk of the county court of the aforesaid county by the secretary of said drainage district. That the defendant has not paid said sum so charged, nor any part thereof; and that there is now due and owing from the defendant to the plaintiff the said sum of $10.30, for which plaintiff prays judgment, etc. The defendant demurred to the complaint, on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and for the further reason that the plaintiff had not legal capacity to sue; which being overruled, the defendant answered, denying each material allegation of the complaint. The defendant had judgment before the justice, from which plaintiff appealed to the circuit court, and upon a trial in that court the defendant again had judgment, from which this appeal is taken.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

In the trial of an action by the court without the intervention of a jury, there must be findings of fact sufficient to sustain the judgment. All of the material issues made by the pleadings should be passed upon. McFadden v. Friendly, 9 Or. 222, so far as it states a different rule, is overruled.

S.B. Huston, R. Williams, and C.H. Carey, for appellant.

Thomas H. Tongue, for respondent.

STRAHAN C.J., (after stating the facts as above.)

There is no bill of exceptions in this case, and therefore the main questions argued upon the trial we are not permitted to examine, because the same are not presented by the record. The only question that is presented by the judgment roll is the sufficiency of the findings of fact to support the judgment. The findings of fact are as follows: The court now finds that the allegations of the complaint are not sustained; that said drainage district is not legally organized; that said alleged tax has not been legally levied and, as conclusions of law, the court finds that the defendant is entitled to judgment against the plaintiff, etc. ...