Case Name: JOHNSON et al, Respondents, v. CAMPBELL et al, Appellants
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1972-05-24
Citations: 262 Or. 500
Docket Number: 
Parties: JOHNSON et al, Respondents, v. CAMPBELL et al, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 262
Pages: 500–503

Head Matter:
Argued May 8,
remanded May 24,
rehearing denied; clarification allowed June 29,
petition for rehearing denied August 1,1972
JOHNSON et al, Respondents, v. CAMPBELL et al, Appellants.
497 P2d 668
498 P2d 381
James H. Anderson, Eugene, argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were Thompson, Mnmford & Woodrich, Eugene.
Robert W. Hill, Eugene, argued the cause for respondents. On the brief were Hill <& Schultz, Eugene.

Opinion:
O'CONNELL, C. J.
This is an appeal from a decree entered on a mandate of this court in the case of Johnson v. Campbell, 259 Or 69, 487 P2d 69 (1971). Defendants contend that the trial court erred in formulating the decree upon remand from this court.
On the original appeal the only question presented was the construction of a provision of a contract requiring that "all deeds shall contain a clause providing that all property shall be for residential use only ."
The trial court construed the provision to mean that the property was to be used exclusively for single family residence purposes. We reversed, holding that the restriction was not intended to preclude the construction of multiple family units. We remanded the cause "with directions to enter a decree consistent with this opinion."
To make the decree consistent with our opinion it was necessary only to revise that part of the decree which provides that "such restrictive covenants prevent the building of multiple family units on said property." This revision could be effected simply by inserting and adding the words "do not" to the decree so that it reads "such restrictive covenants do not prevent the building of multiple family units on said property."
Hill & Schultz, Eugene, on the petition.
No appearance contra.
In all other respects the original decree of the trial conrt stands as it was entered inasmuch as there was no appeal from the decree on any other ground than the scope of the restriction. Any other issues which are still alive and not barred by the doctrine of res judicata can be raised only by another suit or action.
The cause is remanded with directions to revise the original decree as explained above.