Johnson v. Jackson County

Decision Date09 December 1913
Citation68 Or. 432,136 P. 874
PartiesJOHNSON v. JACKSON COUNTY et al. [d]
CourtOregon Supreme Court

Department 2.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; F.M. Calkins, Judge.

Writ of review on petition of O.H. Johnson against Jackson County and others to review proceedings of the County Court. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

This is an appeal by defendants from the judgment on a writ of review issued on petition of plaintiff to review the proceedings of the county court of Jackson county, Or., in January, 1913 levying a three-mill tax on all the taxable property of the county, including the property of plaintiff situated within the limits of the city of Ashland in said county, for a road fund, pursuant to section 6320, L.O.L. The circuit court adjudged that plaintiff's property is exempt from this tax by virtue of section 1, art. 17, of the Charter of Ashland (Sp.L.1898, p. 100), which section reads thus "The territory within the limits of the city of Ashland as now existing or as may be hereafter extended is hereby excepted out of the jurisdiction of the county court of Jackson county for licensing purposes and road purposes, and the city council shall have full and exclusive jurisdiction over the same. The inhabitants of the city shall be exempt from the payment of road taxes and assessment of the property within the city for road work except such taxes as may be levied and assessed by the city council, and all such taxes shall be placed in the separate fund and used for street purposes within the limits of the city and not otherwise."

Porter J. Neff and E.E. Kelly, both of Medford (Neff &amp Mealey, of Medford, on the brief), for appellants.

W.J Moore, of Ashland, and A.E. Reames, of Medford, for respondent.

BEAN J. (after stating the facts as above).

It is contended by counsel for defendants that the foregoing section of the Ashland charter must be construed as exempting property within the city of Ashland from the payment only of one-half of the tax levied pursuant to section 6320, L.O.L., apportionable to the road districts of the county, and not from the one-half of the tax which is placed in a county fund for general road purposes, to be expended by the county court on the roads and bridges in any part of the county. It is their contention that section 6320, L.O.L., provides for a composite tax one-half thereof constituting a local district road tax, and the remaining one-half a general county tax equivalent to that formerly levied as a part of the general county fund for highway purposes. A glance at the section of the charter reveals that the area within the limits of the city of Ashland is excepted out of the jurisdiction of the county court of Jackson county for road purposes, and further that the inhabitants of that city are exempt from the payment of road taxes, and the property within the city is exempt from assessment for road work outside the city boundaries. Similar provisions in municipal charters have been upheld by this court in the following cases: East Portland v. Multnomah County, 6 Or. 62; Multnomah County v. Sliker, 10 Or. 65; Oregon City v. Moore, 30 Or. 215, 46 P. 1017, 47 P. 851; Eugene v. Lane County, 50 Or. 468, 93 P. 255; City of Nyssa v. Malheur County, 54 Or. 286, 103 P. 61; Tillamook City v. Tillamook County, 56 Or. 112, 107 P. 482. In the latter case Mr. Chief Justice McBride, speaking for the court, said: "It is also suggested that the county court had no right to levy any tax for road purposes within the city limits, and in this view we concur. It has been the usual custom to exempt incorporated cities from the payment of general county road taxes, and at the session at which the charter in question was passed several municipal corporations were thus exempted, and it does not seem probable that the Legislature intended to make an exception of Tillamook City." The Legislature,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Jarvill v. City of Eugene
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • May 28, 1980
    ...uniformity of taxation, nevertheless permitted some territorially defined differentials in taxation. See, e. g., Johnson v. Jackson County, 68 Or. 432, 136 P. 874 (1914); City of East Portland v. County of Multnomah, 6 Or. 62 (1876). Other state courts also permitted some exception to the r......
  • State ex rel. Public Welfare Commission v. Malheur County Court
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • March 4, 1949
    ... ... equal and uniform throughout the taxing district, there is no ... violation of the constitutional mandate. Johnson v ... Jackson County, 68 Or. 432, 136 P. 874. In the case of ... Cook v. Port of Portland, 20 Or. 580, 27 P. 263, ... 266, 13 ... ...
  • State ex rel. Harth v. Phipps
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • June 2, 1931
    ...299 P. 1009 136 Or. 454 STATE EX REL. HARTH ET AL. v. PHIPPS, COUNTY JUDGE, ET AL. Supreme Court of OregonJune 2, 1931 ... In ... Bank ... has appealed to this court ... [136 ... Or. 455] J. J. Johnson, of Portland (Albert H. Tanner, of ... Portland, on the brief), for appellants ... 62; Tillamook City v. Tillamook County, 56 Or ... 112, 107 P. 482; Johnson v. Jackson County, 68 Or ... 432, 136 P. 874, 875. In the case last cited it was contended ... by ... ...
  • State ex rel. State Public Welfare Commission v. Malheur County Court
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • March 4, 1949
    ...that if a tax is equal and uniform throughout the taxing district, there is no violation of the constitutional mandate. Johnson v. Jackson County, 68 Or. 432, 136 P. 874. In the case of Cook v. The Port of Portland, 20 Or. 580, 27 P. 263, 13 L.R.A. 533, the court "* * * As was said by Mr. J......
  • 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