The daily morning Astorian. [volume] (Astoria, Oregon) 1883-1899, 1893-05-25

and not to be extended beyond tn,
plain import Of its terms" The plain
tiifs have not brought themselves with
in the exception.
1t was also objected that the entrie.
made in the docket of city liens wer,
insufficient to create lien because
there We're no marks to indicate wheth
er the amounts were intended to des
ignate dollars and cents or mere alb.
stract numbers. The columns are ruled
for dollars and cents, and nobody
would be actually misled by the alb.
sence of the usual dollar &) mark
Our supreme court has held that such
an entry as this sufficiently indicated
the amount claimed.
DeLashmutt VS.. Selwood, .14th Ore
gon, S19.
The objection that there was no levy
on plaintiffs lots is answered by the
fact that no levy is necessary; the
moment the assessment was entered
in the docket of city liens it became
lien upon the property and no other
levy was required.
Freeman on Execution, 2S2.
Bank of British Columbia VS.. Page,
7th Oregon, 454.
A sale without levy transfers the
title.
Freeman on Executions, 2S1, 2S2.
Bagley VS.. Ward, 81 CAL, 131.
Blood VS.. Light, SS Cal, 649.
The objection that the date of sale
was fixed for a time subsequent to the
return day of the warrant is not a
vital one; the right of the chief Of
police to sell the lots by virtue Of
the city's lien and the warrants held
by him before the return day and he
could sell the property after that day.
Remington VS.. Linthicum, IA Peters,
81.
Freeman on Executions, section LOG.
Wharton VS.. Sexton, 4th Wheaton,
5O9. y.
Pettingill vs. Moss, IA American Dec,
TAT.
1t appeared on the trial that lot
i'm block 70 was assessed to Bowlby
and Thomson, when in fact it was
owned by the Clatsop Mill Co. The
law provides that the auditor shall
make up his entry from a certificate
furnished by the county recorder An
entry sO made is sufficient
City Charter, page 80, section So.
Hawthorne VS.. East Portland, 18th
Oregon, page 410.
Plaintiffs also object that the notices
contain nothing to show that the city
to improve this street at the
expense of the adjacent property hold
ers. AS already shown, there was no
other way that it could be lawfully
improved. The city had no right to
make this Improvement at the expense
Of the general public and the plaintiffs
being presumed to know the law, must
be presumed to have known this, and
It was not necessary to set out mat
.ers of law in the notice.
While some of the proceedings in
his matter were not as should be used
rs precedents for regularity, and are,
n some respects, defective, 1 do not
believe there are any such vital defects
IS would render them void. 1t is not
he business of the court to bubble or
eek for faults in order to set aside
of this kind, but rather to
technicalities and irregulari-
les lin form, so long as the law Is
arried out in substance. In the case |
It bar, the city council had jurisdic- |
ion over the subject matter. In the |
xercise of such jurisdiction it gave |
lotice, sufficient, in my judgment, to !
i've it jurisdiction over the parties |
nd the property assessed The plain
iffs all reside in Astoria; all knew Of
he proceedings, and knew that the
,ity was making this improvement
With the intention and under the belief
hat the adjacent property was liable
or the cost Of it, and that such cost
ad been properly assessed against
aid property; and, knowing all these
acts, they made no objection what
yer to such Improvement. Some Of
hem went so far as to contract with
rivate parties to fill the street to the
rade in front of their lots; others ne
otiated with the city about doing the
,ork in front of their lots. They did
OF then complain of the alleged irreg-
larities that they now urge, and, so
lr as the testimony shows, never ap-
rised the city of their objections until
ne work was completed. BY this
purse of conduct they are completely
stopped to complain now.
Elliot on Roads and Streets, page
I8, 419.
In re Cooper, N. Y, 5O7.
Hawthorne VS.. East Portland 18th
regon, 40.
Curtis VS.. Water Co., Goth Oregon, a.
Wright VS.. Tacoma, 10Th Pacific Rep,
State VS.. Morristown, "a N. J. Law.
Is.
State vs. Mayor, 10th N. J. Law, 244.
Other objections were ably urged by
ounsel for the plaintiffs; in fact near
, every objection that could possibly
E suggested in a case of this kind has
cen made by the able counsel in this
ase, and, while the case is not free
ON difficulties, am Of the opinion,
IT the reasons herein stated, that the
efendants are entitled to a decree dis
Iissing plaintiffs bill.
And 1t Is so ordered. u