Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1918-01-15
CASE IS DECIDED BY
SUPREME court TODAY
Nine Decisions We're Handed
Down by Supreme Court
al TOday's Session

Among the nine opinions handed
down b. the supreme court today was
that of the City of Eugene, respond
ent, against Thomas II. Garrett ct al,
appealed from Lane county.
This is suit to establish the right
or the City of Eugene to q street
known as Agate avenue. 1t is rather
complicated as to facts and its history
briefly follows:
In 1890 Fairmount was plotted into
lots and blocks with streets and alleys
1t was some distance from the limits
of the city of Eugene. The lands so
plotted were within the limits of the
donation land claim of William Smith
and wife with the west line of their
land claim also the west line of Fair
mount. The street on this west line
was known as Agate avenue, and be-
cause the lines of Fairmount and the
donation land claim were not parallel
had a width varying from SO to 90
feet. 1t was plated and dedicated. In
1891 University Addition to Eugene
was plated, its east line being the
west line of Paramount. In 1892 Fair
mount was replatted to correct an err
ror and the west boundary of the
lots fronting on Agate avenue were
| by this placed IL feet further west
than on the original plat. Later a por-
tion of University addition was order
ed vacated by the county court Then
suit was brought quieting title in the
university The limits of the city were
extended by the legislature of 1903 to
! include this property. Then came the
dispute over the right of the city to
| Agate avenue. This, in a suit in the
circuit court, was decided in favor of
the city and defendant appealed. The
supreme count in its opinion today
!modifies the decree of the lower court
by excluding from the declaration of
lne street 90 feet in width, all that
portion of Agate avenue over the Uni
verstiy tract between 18th and 18th
streets, and affirms the decree as to
the remainder.
The other opinions are:
Douglas Land Co. appellant VS. Clat-
Isop Co.; appealed from Clatsop; SUI
asking for the reduction of assessment
on property; opinion by Justice Nc
Camant; Circuit Judge Eakin affirm
led.
Oregon Mill & Grain Co. VS. IL. G.
Hyde ct al, appellants; appealed from
Baker; involving validity of garnish-
ment; opinion by Justice Harris; Cir
cult Judge Knowles affirmed.
T. w. Kendall, appellant VS. Trav-
elers Protective association Of Ameri-
ca; appealed from Mutnomah; suit to
recover insurance policy; opinion by
Justice Burnett; Circuit Judge MOI
row affirmed.
School district No. 80, Clatsop coun-
ty VS. Alameda Construction Co. ct al,
appellants; appealed from Clatsop; in
volving cost bill; considered on re-
hearing and former opinion adhered to
P. E. Stillwell ct al, VS. A. 7. Hill,
appellant; appealed from Union; con
sidered on rehearing and former opln-
ion adhered to.
Clarke -Woodard Drug Co. appellants
VS. Hot Lake Sanitorium, ct al; APP
pealed from Union; suit to impress
lien upon property; opinion by Chief
Justice Mcbride; Circuit Judge
Knowles affirmed.
John Finley VS. Finley Morrison ct
al, appellant; appealed from Linn;
suit to quiet title; opinion by Justice
Benson; Circuit Judge Galloway af-
firmed.
Petitiond for rehearing ddnied in
Smith VS. Robinson, Buttle vs. Douglas
county, and Bell VS. Vogt.
M. E. Grove appellant, VS. H. R. AL
bee, mayor of the city of Portland, re-
spondent; appealed from Multnomah
county; suit to compel reinstatement
of plaintiff ON police force; affirmed.