Case Name: NICHOLAS v. YAMHILL COUNTY
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1920-09-28
Citations: 102 Or. 615
Docket Number: 
Parties: NICHOLAS v. YAMHILL COUNTY.
Judges: McBride, Bean and Band, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 102
Pages: 615–635

Head Matter:
Motion to dismiss appeal denied September 28, 1920,
second motion to dismiss denied February 1, 1921,
argued on the merits December 6, 1921,
affirmed January 17, 1922.
NICHOLAS v. YAMHILL COUNTY.
(192 Pac. 410.)
Appeal and. Error — Transcript Sufficient to Give Jurisdiction Though Incomplete.
1. In suit to enjoin a tax proceeding prosecuted under Laws of 1915, page 205, transcript, though incomplete and unsatisfactory, held sufficient to give the Supreme Court jurisdiction of the appeal.
Appeal and Error — Order Should Issue Directing Clerk Below to Send up Pleadings and to Prepare Exhibits.
2. Order should be issued from the Supreme Court, directed to the clerk of the court below, requiring him to send up the original pleadings and to prepare the exhibits and depositions and turn them over to attorneys for plaintiff appellant, as required by Laws of 1913, page 656, Section 1, Section 554, L. O. L., as amended by Laws of 1913, page 618.
Evidence — Judicial Notice of Distance of Town from. City Taken.
3. The Supreme Court will take judicial notice that McMinnville is less than fifty miles from Portland, Oregon.
Appeal and Error — Buie as to Service of Printed Abstract Sufficiently Complied With.
4. Where the transcript on appeal was filed in the Supreme Court July 23d, and the printed abstract was filed August 13th, accompanied with proof of service that an attorney for appellant August 11th mailed in Portland, Oregon, a copy of the abstract addressed to the attorney for the respondents at a town within fifty miles of Portland, postage prepaid, there was a sufficient compliance with Buie 6 of the Supreme Court (89 Or. 712, 173 Pae. viii).
ON THE MEEITS.
(203 Pac. 593.)
Bridges — Legislature may Authorize Tax Levy on Besidents of Island Boad District to Pay Bridge Bonds.
5. The legislature may authorize a tax levy on residents of an island road district to pay bonds issued to build a bridge from which they derive the principal benefit.
Statutes — Act for Bonding Island Boad Districts for Building Bridges Held not Unconstitutional Because Title Embraced All Boad Districts.
6. Sections 4741-4753, Or. L., held not in violation of Constitution Article IV, Section 20, as purporting to include all road districts and implying that bonds thereof may be issued for various purposes, though the act embraces only such districts as are com posed entirely of an island in a navigable river, and limits tlie issuance of bonds to build bridges; the title apprising residents of such districts of the proposed legislation.
Taxation — Jurisdiction to Restrain Collection of Tax not Invoked for Mere Illegality or Irregularity in Proceedings.
7. The jurisdiction of equity to restrain the collection of a tax cannot be invoked for mere illegality or irregularity in the proceedings; its jurisdiction being confined to cases where the tax itself is not authorized or is assessed on nontaxable property, the persons exacting it are without authority or have proceeded fraudulently, or some other ground of equitable interference is shown.
Elections — Substantial Compliance With Statute as to Notice of Bond Election is Sufficient.
8. It is a condition precedent to the validity of an election as to a bond issue for a public purpose that notices be given for the time and substantially in the manner designated in the statute, but the particular form and manner pointed out by the statute is not essential.
Bridges — Bond Election Held Valid, Though Proof of Notice Dated After Meeting.
9. Under Sections 4741-4753, Or. Ii., requiring proof of posting notice of meeting to authorize a bond issue for the building of a bridge by affidavit, and that the secretary of the meeting shall inclose copies of such proof with his certificate to the county clerk, an election was valid, where the affidavit, though dated later than the meeting showed the notices were properly posted, and the proof which the secretary’s minutes recited was submitted, accompanied his certificate, which was filed on the date of the affidavit.
Newspapers — Printer’s Affidavit of Circulation Held Sufficient.
10. The printer’s affidavit that the paper “is of general circulation” was sufficient proof of publication, within Sections 4741-4753, Or. L., and of an order for publication of notice of bridge bond election.
Bridges — Affidavit of Posting Notice “in” Instead of “at” Courthouse Held Sufficient.
11. An affidavit that notice of a bond election for construction of a bridge was posted “in,” instead of “at,” the courthouse, as required by Sections 4741-4753, Or. L., held sufficient; “at” meaning “in,” or “within,” and more generally “within” than “without.”
Bridges — Evidence Held Sufficient to Show Affidavit Stated When Notice of Bond Election was Posted.
12. In a suit to restrain the collection of a special tax to pay bonds issued pursuant to Sections 4741-4753, Or. L., the record and certified copy of the proof of the posting of notice of the election on a date conforming to the secretary’s minutes of the election meet ing and the court’s order declaring the result, held sufficient to show that the affidavit of posting stated the date thereof, though plaintiff’s certified copy of the record contained no such statement.
8. Necessity of compliance with statutory requirements as to notice of election for issuance of bonds, see note in 18 Ann. Cas. 1137.
Bridges — Court’s' Order Declaring Result of Bond Election Cures Irregularities.
13. Under Sections 4741-4753, Or. L., providing that an order by the County Court declaring that a majority of the electors of an island road district voted to issue bonds for the construction of a bridge “shall be absolutely conclusive as to the regularity of all the proceedings,” such order cures all mere irregularities.
Appeal and Error — Assignments not Discussed in Brief or Argued Assumed Abandoned.
14. The Supreme Court will assume that all assignments of error not discussed in appellant’s brief nor alluded to> in argument are abandoned.
From Yamhill: Harry H. Belt, Judge.
In Banc.
This is an action by B. W. Nicholas against Yamhill County, Oregon, and W. Gr. Henderson, Sheriff. From a judgment in favor of defendants, plaintiff appeals. Respondents move to dismiss appeal.
Motion Denied.
Mr. R. L. Conner, District Attorney, for the motion.
Mr. Newton McCoy and Mr. H. B. Nicholas, contra.

Opinion:
BENNETT, J.
This is a motion to dismiss the appeal in the above-entitled cause upon the following grounds:
First: That the original pleadings have not been sent up, as required by Chap. 335, Laws of 1913.
Second: The appellant has not filed a transcript of the evidence heard in the trial court.
Third: The appellant has not served the printed abstract upon the attorneys for respondent, as required by Rule 6 of this court.
Fourth: That the printed abstract of record is not sufficient because it does not include a copy of the pleadings, and is not sufficient to give the court a full understanding of the questions presented for decision.
It appears from the affidavit of the attorney for respondent that, the pleadings in the original cause in the lower court were very voluminous, the complaint and answer alone constituting more than 30 pages of typewritten matter. The printed abstract filed by the appellant is very brief, and does not give a. complete copy of any of the pleadings in the case, but only such summary as appellant seems to deem necessary for an understanding of the question which he presents. The appellant contends, however, that the abstract is sufficient to give the court jurisdiction, and asks for an order requiring the clerk of the court below to send up the original pleadings.
While the abstract is by no means satisfactory, and probably is insufficient to present some of the questions relied upon by the appellant, yet we think it is enough to clearly present to the court at least one question — the question of the constitutionality of Chap. 170, Laws of 1915, under which the tax proceeding sought to be enjoined was prosecuted.
Section 1 of Chap. 335, Laws of 1913, is as follows:
"When an appeal is perfected the original pleadings and the original bill of exceptions shall be sent by the clerk, or other proper officer of the trial court, to the clerk of the Supreme Court or appellate court, and shall be a part of the transcript in the Supreme Court or appellate court so long as it may be needed there, and if the said papers are later required for use in the trial court, said papers shall be returned to the trial court and kept of record therein, the object being to require one original record to answer the purpose in each court, and the Supreme Court or appellate court is instructed to promulgate the necessary rules for the custody of the original record to accomplish this-purpose."
And Section 554, L. O. L., as amended by Chap. 320, Laws of 1913, provides in subdivision 1:
"If the appeal is from a decree and the cause is to be tried anew on the testimony, the clerk shall attach together the testimony, depositions, and other papers on file in his office containing the evidence heard or offered on trial in the court below, and deliver the same to the appellant, taking therefor his receipt in duplicate, one of which receipts he shall file in his office and the other deliver to the respondent when so requested. Such evidence shall be deemed a part of the transcript or abstract and shall be filed therewith."
Rule 11 adopted by this court (89 Or. 715, 173 Pac. ix), providing for the form of an abstract, is as follows :
' ' Set out all of the complaint necessary to an understanding of the questions to be presented to this court, and no more. In setting out exhibits, omit all merely formal irrelevant parts."
And in relation to the answer:
"Here set out so much of the answer as may be necessary to explain the questions raised on the appeal, and no more, omitting all formal parts."
We think that the transcript in the case, while incomplete and unsatisfactory, is sufficient to give the court jurisdiction.
We also think an order should be issued from this court, directed to the clerk of the court below, requiring him to send up the original pleadings and to prepare the exhibits and depositions and turn them over to the attorneys for appellant, as required by the above enactments.
In Smith v. Algona Lbr. Co., 73 Or. 1, 6 (136 Pac. 7, 9, 143 Pac. 921), it is said in an opinion by Mr. Justice McNaky:
"The form of a part of that record is not as required by statute, and to dismiss an appeal for nonobservance of form when the substance is supplied would be carrying the rule beyond reason, and giving effect to form rather than substance. "While vexatious appeals should be discouraged, yet the opportunity for litigants to have their issues tried in the higher courts should not be hindered by technical constructions, which too frequently lead to the subversion of justice."
And the latter paragraph of this language is quoted and followed in an opinion by Mr. Justice Harris in State v. Rider, 78 Or. 318, 320 (145 Pac. 1056), in which the court refuses a motion to dismiss and further says:
"At least one phase of the case can be submitted on appeal without the presence of a bill of exceptions, and even though other questions discussed in the brief could not be considered without the evidence and a bill of exceptions. If plaintiff deemed the abstract imperfect or unfair, an additional abstract could have been filed, as provided by Eule 7."
As to the service of the printed abstract upon the respondents, Eule 6 of this court (89 Or. 712, 173 Pac. viii) requires:
"Within twenty days after the transcript is filed in a civil case the appellant shall serve upon the attorney for each respondent a printed abstract, prepared as hereinafter provided, containing a copy of so much of the record, as may be necessary to a full understanding of the questions presented for decision, and within five days after service of the abstract the appellant0 shall file with the clerk of this court sixteen copies thereof, accompanied with proof of such service. In case of cross-appeals, the party first giving notice of appeal shall be considered the appellant under this rule. In criminal cases, a printed abstract may be served and filed, or not, as the appellant may elect. No case shall be docketed for hearing unless this and other rules are complied with, except by order of the court."
In this case the transcript appears by the record to have been filed in this court on the twenty-third day of July, and the printed abstract was filed on the thirteenth day of August, accompanied by the following proof of service:
"I, H. B. Nicholas, one of the attorneys for appellant, do hereby certify that on the 11th day of August, 1920, I mailed at the postoffiee in Portland, Oregon, a copy of this abstract, addressed to R. L. Conner, McMinnville, Oregon; postage thereon being fully prepaid, all in accordance with the regulations of the United States postoffice.
"H. B. Nicholas, "Attorney for Appellant."
This transcript, in the regular course of mail, would have reached McMinnville, on the 12th of August, which would have been sufficient. Even if it reached there on the 13th it would have been sufficient under the repeated decisions of this court. The showing of the respondent as to whether he received this abstract, and as to when, if he did receive it, is equivocal, and he says in his brief:
"If same was so mailed by appellant, or his attorney, it did not reach the hands of the attorney for respondents until some time after the 20 days • had expired following the filing of the transcript, and even if it were considered that placing same in the postoffice would constitute a service thereof, it was not made within the time prescribed by Rule 6."
Section 540, L. O. L., provides:
"Service by mail may be made, when the person for whom the service is made, and tbe person on whom it is to be made, reside in different places, between which there is a communication by mail, adding one day to the time of service for every fifty miles of distance between the place of deposit and the place of address."
The court will take judicial knowledge that Mc-Minnville is less than fifty miles from Portland.
We do not thing any good purpose could be served by such a strict construction of Rule 6 as would shut out the appeal in this case. The motion to dismiss is denied, and it is ordered that the clerk of the lower court be required to send up the original papers in the case, as hereinbefore indicated.
Motion Denied. Second Motion to Dismiss Appeal Denied.