Waterhouse v. Clatsop County

Citation91 P. 1083,50 Or. 176
PartiesWATERHOUSE et al. v. CLATSOP COUNTY et al.
Decision Date15 October 1907
CourtOregon Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Clatsop County; Thomas A. McBride, Judge.

Action by John Waterhouse and another against Clatsop county and another. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Gilbert L. Hedges, Dist. Atty., and John C. McCue, for appellants.

John H & A.M. Smith, for respondents.

BEAN C.J.

The question for decision on this appeal is whether the county clerk is required to extend the taxes levied for the year 1907 on the original assessment roll, and deliver such roll with a warrant for the collection attached, to the tax collector, or whether he shall make a transcript of the original roll, extend the taxes thereon, and deliver the same, with the tax warrant attached, to such officer. Prior to the act of February 28, 1907 (Laws 1907, p. 453), the law required the county clerk to make a certificate of the several amounts apportioned to be assessed upon the taxable property of his county and deliver the same to the sheriff together with a transcript of the original assessment roll, with the amount of taxes extended and entered thereon, and with a warrant authorizing the collection of such tax attached. B. & C. Comp. § 3090. On February 28, 1907, an act was passed to provide a more efficient system for the levy and collection of taxes. Laws 1907, p. 453. By section 14 of this act the county clerk is to extend the taxes on the original roll in place of on a transcript thereof, as formerly, and deliver such original roll, with the taxes so extended and warrant attached, to the tax collector; and by section 80 it is declared that all laws heretofore in force are to continue in force and effect until all things and acts in and about the assessment, apportionment, and levy of taxes upon the basis of ownership of property on the 1st day of March, 1907, and the assessment, apportionment, levy, and collection of taxes and proceedings incident thereto, made or commenced prior to such date (except as specified in section 55), have been fully and duly performed, but that the taxes levied on the basis of ownership of property on March 1, 1907, shall be collected as in the act provided.

The object of this provision is plain. The assessment for the year 1907 was to be made on the basis of ownership of property on March 1, of that year, and therefore would be partly completed before the act of February 28th...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Dennehy v. Department of Revenue, TC
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • 6 Julio 1988
    ... ... renewal agencies: Albany Redevelopment Agency, Beaverton Urban Renewal Agency, Clackamas County Development Agency, Coos County Urban Renewal Agency, Eugene Renewal Agency, Lake Oswego [305 Or ... Nor did the case on which the opinion relied, Waterhouse v. Clatsop County, 50 Or. 176, 91 P. 1083 (1907). The quotation from Waterhouse drew the line ... ...
  • Morse v. Kroger
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • 28 Febrero 1930
    ...285 P. 185 87 Mont. 54 MORSE v. KROGER, County Treasurer, et al. No. 6544.Supreme Court of MontanaFebruary 28, 1930 ...          Appeal ... is not a part of the levy and assessment of the taxes (24 ... Cal. Jur. p. 211; Waterhouse v. Clatsop County, 50 ... Or. 176, 91 P. 1083); it is merely a step in the method of ... their ... ...
  • Morse v. Kroger, 6544.
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • 28 Febrero 1930
    ...tax, as required by this section, is not a part of the levy and assessment of the taxes (24 Cal. Jur. p. 211; Waterhouse v. Clatsop County, 50 Or. 176, 91 P. 1083); it is merely a step in the method of their collection-a purely ministerial function. Palomares Co. v. Los Angeles County, 146 ......
  • School Dist. No. 1, Mult. Co. v. Bingham
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • 27 Junio 1944
    ...taxes on the tax roll is not part of the levy of the tax, but is merely a step in the process of its collection. Waterhouse v. Clatsop County, 50 Or. 176, 178, 91 P. 1083, 1084. We find no reason for over-ruling that case, wherein the late Mr. Chief Justice ROBERT S. BEAN, speaking for the ......
  • 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