Case Name: HOCHFELD v. PORTLAND
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1920-10-19
Citations: 97 Or. 572
Docket Number: 
Parties: HOCHFELD v. PORTLAND.
Judges: Mr. Justice Brown not sitting.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 97
Pages: 572–578

Head Matter:
Argued June 1,
reversed June 29,
on petition for rehearing former opinion set aside and lower court affirmed, October 19, 1920.
HOCHFELD v. PORTLAND.
(190 Pac. 725; 192 Pac. 911.)
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING.
Municipal Corporations — Proceedings for Reassessment Held Instituted WitMn Ten Years.
1. Proceedings for reassessment instituted December 23, 1914, ordinance declaring the reassessment being passed Mareh 31, 1915, were instituted within the ten years of limitation from August 15, 1906, when resolution of intention for making the original improvement was passed, and the proceedings started prescribed by Charter of City of Portland, Section 400.
Certiorari — Writ Allowed Where Court Officer or Tribunal Has Erred or Exceeded Jurisdiction.
2. Under Section 605, L. O. L., a writ of review is allowed where an inferior court officer or tribunal has exercised judicial functions erroneously, or has exceeded 'his or its jurisdiction to the injury of some substantial right o£ plaintiff and not otherwise.
Municipal Corporations — Proceedings Required Prior to Original Assessment not Required Again on Reassessment.
3. Under Charter of City of Portland, Section 400, in its provision for reassessment for an improvement, particularly in view of Section 401, if the city council does not attempt a different plan of apportionment of benefits, the former proceedings required to be taken prior to the original assessment are not required to be taken again within the intent of the section, though the council is authorized to take such proceedings when necessary to correct former errors.
From Multnomah: Robert Tucker, Judge.
In Banc.
Proceeding by S. Hochfeld and others for a writ of review directed to the City of Portland and another. The writ was dismissed and plaintiffs appeal.
Reversed.
For appellants there was a brief and an oral argument by Mr. Ralph R. Duniway.
For respondents there was a brief over the names of Mr. Walter P. La Roche, City Attorney, and Mr. Lyman E. Latourette, Deputy City Attorney, with an oral argument by Mr. Latourette.

Opinion:
BEAN, J.
This is a writ .of review proceeding relative to a reassessment made by Ordinance No. 30,289 of the City of Portland, for the cost of improvement of East Oak Street, from Union Avenue to a point sixty-five feet east of the east line of East Sixth Street, in the City of Portland. The lower court found the reassessment proceedings regular and dismissed the writ. Plaintiff appeals.
This case is similar to the case of Brown v. Portland, post, p. 600 (190 Pac. 722), and the case of Cook et al. v. Portland, post, p. 000 (190 Pac. 726), in both of which cases an opinion has this day been rendered. The case is governed by the principles announced in Brown v. Portland.
Former opinion set aside and lower court affirmed October 19, 1920.
On petition for rehearing. Former opinion reversed and set aside, and judgment of the trial court dismissing writ of review affirmed.
Affirmed.
Mr. Walter P. La Roche, .City Attorney, and Mr. Lyman E. Latourette, Deputy City Attorney, for the petition.
Mr. Ralph R. Dimiway, contra.
In Banc.
The judgment of the lower court is accordingly reversed, and the writ, of review is sustained, and the reassessment made by Ordinance No. 30,289 is set aside. Reversed.