Morris v. City of Salem et al.

Decision Date12 November 1946
Citation179 Or. 666,174 P.2d 192
PartiesMORRIS <I>v.</I> CITY OF SALEM ET AL.
CourtOregon Supreme Court
                  See 25 Am. Jur. 483; validity of parking meter ordinances, notes
                108 A.L.R. 1153; 130 A.L.R. 317; 44 C.J., Municipal corporations
                § 4095
                

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County.

GEORGE R. DUNCAN, Judge.

Lawrence N. Brown, City Attorney, of Salem, for appellants.

Chris. J. Kowitz, of Salem, for respondent.

REVERSED.

HAY, J.

In this suit plaintiff, a resident and taxpayer of the City of Salem, sought to enjoin the city, its mayor and recorder from entering into and performing a contract for the purchase and installation of parking meters upon certain streets in the business district of said city.

On May 2, 1939, the common council adopted an ordinance for the regulation of traffic upon the city streets, establishing parking-meter zones, and providing for the installation and operation of parking meters. On October 15, 1945, the council adopted a resolution authorizing the mayor and recorder, on behalf of the city, to execute a contract between the city and Michaels Art Bronze Company, Inc., providing for the installation of parking meters upon certain streets for an experimental period of six months, at an agreed rental, with an option to the city to purchase the meters at the expiration of the six months' period. Fifty per cent of the moneys derived from the operation of the meters was to be paid to the meter company as rental and, in the event that the city should exercise its option to purchase, was to be credited upon the purchase price, the remainder to be paid by continued application thereto of fifty per cent of the income of the meters.

The fiscal year for municipal corporations begins on the first day of July and ends with the thirtieth day of June. The complaint herein was filed November 28, 1945. It alleged, and it is admitted, that the city was then about to enter into the contract above mentioned. We must assume, therefore, that it was the intention of the city that parking meters should be installed immediately and should be in operation during a considerable part of the fiscal year 1945-1946. It alleged further that the proposed contract was invalid, for reasons hereinafter discussed.

The defendants filed a general demurrer to the complaint,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • DeFazio v. Washington Public Power Supply System
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • May 1, 1984
    ......(McMinnville Ratepayers); Plaintiffs-Respondents/Cross-Appellants, . The City of Drain, a Municipal Corporation (Drain): Canby . Utility Board, an Independent Governmental ... Salem Water Co. v. City of Salem, 5 Or. 29 (1873), see also Brewster v. Deschutes County, 137 Or. 100, 1 ... payable from rents held to be outside debt limitation despite a "moral make-up clause"); Morris v. City of Salem, 179 Or. 666, 174 P.2d 192 (1946) (same for contract to purchase parking meters ......
  • Foeller v. Housing Authority of Portland
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • April 29, 1953
    .......         Helen F. Althaus, Deputy City Atty., of Portland, argued the cause for respondent City of Portland. With her on the brief were ...271] in the past: Morris...271] in the past: Morris v. City of Salem......
  • City of Decatur v. Robinson, 8 Div. 431.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • June 24, 1948
    ...... Gardner v. City of Brunswick, 197 Ga. 167, 28 S.E.2d. 135; De Aryan v. City of San Diego, 75 Cal.App.2d. 292, 170 P.2d 482; Morris v. City of Salem, 179 Or. 666, 174 P.2d 192; and Newark v. New Jersey, 133. N.J.L. 513, 45 A.2d 139. . . The. dissenting opinion ......
  • State v. Alderwoods (Or.), Inc.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • December 31, 2015
    ......With him on the brief was Thomas W. Sondag. Denise G. Fjordbeck, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent on review. With her on the brief were Ellen F. ...Denis M. Vannier, Deputy City Attorney, Portland, filed the brief for amicus curiae League of Oregon Cities. BALDWIN, J. 358 Or. ...Elliott & William F. Elliott, 2 Roads and Streets § 882, 1153 (4th ed. 1926)); Morris v. City of Salem et al., 179 Or. 666, 673, 174 P.2d 192 (1946) ("All that the plaintiff is ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Another Day Older and Deeper in Debt: Debt Limitation, the Broad Special Fund Doctrine, and Wppss 4 and 5
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 7-01, September 1983
    • Invalid date
    ...Corporations, 4725, § 2230). 58. 113 Or. at 183, 232 P. at 657 (citing 5 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations 4722, 4723, § 2228). 59. 179 Or. 666, 174 P.2d 192 60. "The general rule is that the purchase of property by a city, to be paid for solely out of income to be derived from the property......

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