Landess v. City of Cottage Grove

• Decision Date: 04 February 1913
• Citation: 64 Or. 155,129 P. 537
• Parties: LANDESS et al. v. CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE et al.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

129 P. 537

64 Or. 155

LANDESS et al. v. CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE et al.

Supreme Court of Oregon

February 4, 1913

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lane County; L.T. Harris, Judge.

Action by Wm. Landess and others against the City of Cottage Grove and B.F. Keeney, as assessor of Lane county, Or., to enjoin the imposition of a tax on the property of plaintiffs by the defendant city, for the reason that the land is situated outside the corporate limits, and therefore not subject to such taxation. The circuit court sustained a demurrer to plaintiffs' complaint, and dismissed the suit. Plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.

C.A. Hardy, of Eugene, and J.S. Medley, of Cottage Grove (Thompson & Hardy, of Eugene, on the brief), for appellants.

J.C. Johnson, of Cottage Grove (J.E. Young, of Cottage Grove, on the brief), for respondents.

BEAN J.

The following facts are shown in plaintiffs' complaint: The city of Cottage Grove is a municipal corporation created by an act of the legislative assembly of 1903, which defined the limits of the city. In 1911 the common council of Cottage Grove, pursuant to an initiative petition therefor, called a special election for the purpose of submitting to the legal voters an amendment to the city charter enlarging the corporate boundaries of the municipality. On May 1, 1911, an election was held in the city, as provided by an ordinance passed by the council and pursuant to a notice thereof. The electors of the city and the legal voters residing within the limits of the territory sought to be annexed were permitted to vote together promiscuously, and their ballots were mingled in the same ballot boxes. In the canvass of the votes it was not determined whether the voters residing without the city and within the area proposed to be annexed approved such annexation or not. The proceedings resulting in the adoption of the amended charter, and declaring the boundaries changed are set out in detail in the complaint.

Plaintiffs assert that their lands are situated within the portion attempted to be added to the city, and are therefore not subject to a municipal tax. Since this suit was heard by the trial court we have had two cases before this court involving a similar question. It may now be stated as the settled law of this state that the power reserved to the legal voters of a municipality to enact and amend their charter (article 11, § 2, Const.; Laws 1911, p. 10) does not authorize the...