Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1909-12-28
SUPREME
COURT
DECISIONS
Petition for a Rehearing in the
KrebS Hop CAGE Against
LiveSIy & Co. Denied.

In an opinion rendered by the SUI
preme court of the state in the case
of the Elmore Packing Company VS..
TilIamook County, the deision of the
circuit court of that county is af-
firmed. The opinion is written by
Justice EalSin and in it he dwells
at length upon all the questions rails
ed by the attorneys for the appel
lants.
The case was brought up in the
circuit court on a writ of review
for the purpose of reviewing the pro-
ceedings of the board of equaliza-
tion in Tillamook county and i'm
volved the assessment of 500 cases
of salmon and also the canning ma
chinery of the company. The COM
pany's contention was that the as
sessment was too high and applied
for a writ to have the proceedings
of the board reviewed, but the writ
was dismissed on motion of the de-
fendant The supreme court holds
that the lower court was justified in
quashing the writ as the petition
praying for its issuance did not state
sufficient facts for the court to grant
It, and replying to the contention
of the company that the cases of
salmon involved were not assessable
to the company because they were
not owned by it but had been sold
the opinion cites statute 10 the eff
feet that all property found I'm poss-
ession of a person must by the as
essor be assessed TO him. The ma
chinery was assessed at $500 and
the company asked for a reduction
to $4,000.
Similar issues were involved in
the cases of Samuel Elmore against
Tillamook county and the Nehalem
Packing Company against the same
defendant. The decision Of the low
er court was the same as that In the
first case, and the supreme courts
decision the samoan affirmation of
the lower tribunal. In the case Of
Elmore VS.. Tillamook county, the |
appellant contends that his property
was assessed at a higher rate than
adjoining property but the supreme |
court holds that this is not ground !
for reduction and that II the adioin- |
ing land is equally as valuable that
II is the board of equalization's duty |
to raise its valuation.
Other Decisions.
Ihe supreme court also rendered !
a decision I'm the case OF Mahlen II. |
Runyan against Jennie Winstock ct |
al. This was a petition for a re-
hearing and II was denied
A petition for a rehearing I'm the
case OF the Krebs Hop Company VS..
r A. Liyesly e. Company was also
denied. In this case the Krebs
Hop Company had entered into a
contract with r. A Liyesly e. Com
pany for the sale OF its hop crop
FOR number of years and brought
an action against the defendant for
rs failure TO live up 70 the terms OF
ts contract, and was awarded dam
ages amounting 10 $4,000 and also
he costs OF the suit
IN the case of A. A. Courtney ys.
he Bridal Veil Box Factory and the
Bridal Veil Lumber Company. the
decision OF the lower tribunal Is
sustained. In this case the plaintiff
brought an action against the two
defendant companies for failure TO
comply with the terms OF an oras
.ontract 10 furnish him with 10000
I'D boxes. The lower court awarded
lin damages to the amount Of ST.
no. and also allowed the counter
lain OF the defendants amounting /
o SLIT. and this decision Is Bus-
Aimed, the supreme court holding ;
lat the contract did not come within 3
he statute Of fraud az eOntendcd by
he defendant companies