Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1911-10-20
OREGON SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
Fall Text Published by Courtesy Turner Reporter Of the
Supreme Court

serve to impose additional labor on
the clerk in entering the record. which
they incumber and add to the expense
Of a transcript on appeal. They are
wholly unnecessary in such cases.
BY the terms of l.. o. L. section 937,
the county court has the authority
and powers pertaining to county com
missioners to transact county busi-
ness, among other things "3. To es-
tablish, yacate or alter county roads
or highways within the county or any
other necessary act pertaining thereto
in the manner provided by the law;
4. To provide for the erection and
repairing, within the county, of pub
lie bridges on any road or highway
established by public authority. . 4"
Z. To estimate and determine the
amount Of revenue to be raised for
county purposes and to levy the rate
necessary therefor together with the
rate required by law for any other
Purpose and cause the same to be
placed in the hands of the proper
office for collection. 9. To have
the general care ana management Of
the county property, funds and bust
ness where the law does not otherwise
| expressly provide" The legislative
assembly of 1903 passed an act re-
modelling the entire road system of
the state and repeating all previous
legislation on that subject, but did
not In terms amend or repeal the sec
tion from which these excerpts are
taken. The legislative assembly of
| 1909 amended section "a of the act of
1903, already noted, so as to read as
follows: Section "a. That the county
court or commissioners court of each
county in the state may levy a tax of
not to exceed ten mills on the dollar
on all taxable property of said county
lat the time of making the annual tax
levy from the previous years assess
ment, which shall be set apart as a
general road fund to be used in the
building and improving the public or
county roads or bridges on county
roads Of the county in which the prop
erty is located Said tax shall be paid
in money and collected in the same
manner as other county taxes are col
lected and when so collected shall be
used for road purposes only as pro-
vided in this act and fifty per cent
thereof shall be apportioned to the
several road districts in such propor-
tion as the amount of taxable prop
erty in each district shall bear to the
whole amount of taxable property in
the county and the remaining fifty
per cent shall be applied to roads in
such locality in the county as the
court may direct T." The remain
der of the section provides a scheme
whereby the tax payers of any road
district In any county of the state may
vote an additional tax for road pur-
poses provided at least ten per cent
of the tax payers of the said district
shall give certain notices and comply
with other requirements that are pre-
scribed whereby the proceedings of
the tax payers meeting may be report
ed to the county clerk and the levy
collected as other taxes are collected.
The provisions Of the legislation of
1909 are embodied in sections 6320
and 1921 L. o. L.
The contention of the plaintiffs is
'h'N w iNi 90 NilN NONhlg NOull 10
concerned these provisions are man
datory upon that tribunal and exclu-
sive of every other method of raising
funds for the improvement of high
ways and bridges in the county. They
argue that may" where used in the
act means must" constituting an
imperative duty upon the county court
to levy the tax named in section 1920.
Where a ministerial public duty is to
be performed by some officer or the
right of an individual is affected by
the actions of that officer the word
may has often been construed as
shall in mandatory sense, but the
ordinary. import of the word is that
is is directory. In the cases of Smith
V. King, IA Ore, 10; Kohn V. Hinshaw,
l Ore. sos, and Mcleod " Scott, q
Ore. "a, are cases where may" has
been construed in mandatory sense,
but all these We're cases where the
rights Of private individual were
affected by the action or non-action
-a-au--u---~-a-l