Case Name: LAIS v. SILVERTON
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1915-03-30
Citations: 77 Or. 434
Docket Number: 
Parties: LAIS v. SILVERTON.
Judges: Mr. Chief Justice Moore, Mr. Justice Benson and Mr. Justice Harris concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 77
Pages: 434–440

Head Matter:
Motion for injunction pending appeal granted March 30, 1915.
Petition to admit ordinance in evidence denied March 30, 1915.
Argued on the merits June 24, remanded July 13, 1915.
Petition for rehearing denied September 21, 1915.
LAIS v. SILVERTON.
(147 Pac. 398; 150 Pac. 269; 151 Pac. 712.)
Appeal and Error — Injunction Pending Appeal.
1. On appeal from a decree dismissing a suit to enjoin a city from letting contracts and making assessments for street improvements, a temporary injunction will be granted by the Supreme Court, restraining the eity from levying upon, attempting to sell, or selling any of plaintiffs’ property until the further order of the court.
Appeal and Error — Hearing—Evidence.
2. On appeal from a decree dismissing a suit to enjoin a eity from letting contracts and making assessments for street improvements, the Supreme Court has no authority to make an order admitting in evidence upon the hearing a copy of an assessment ordinance enaeted after the appeal was taken.
Municipal Corporations — Public Improvements — Remonstrances—Charter Provisions.
3. The 'Silverton City charter authorizes the eity to improve streets, and provides that the owners of two thirds of the property adjacent to the improvement may file with the council a written remonstrance against a proposed improvement, whereupon it shall not be proceeded with, and that each lot or part thereof shall be liable for the full cost of the improvement, of the street abutting thereon. Reid that, there being no provision whereby the city may select a certain proportion of the depth of an adjoining tract and subject the designated portion to the cost of the improvement, the assessment would naturally fall upon the whole tract, and henee the area of the whole tract, and not merely its front footage, should be considered in determining whether two thirds of the property adjacent to the improvement is represented on a remonstrance.
Municipal Corporations — Public Improvements — Suits to Enjoin — Evidence.
4. In a suit to enjoin a street improvement, the evidence was unsatisfactory whether the land represented on a remonstrance against the improvement was two thirds of the land adjacent to the improvement, and, at defendant's request, the case was reopened for further evidence, but the evidence introduced was no more satisfactory than that previously introduced. Thereupon plaintiffs asked for a postponement until they could have an accurate survey made and procure the testimony of witnesses as to the actual area of the disputed tracts. Held that the court should have granted this request.
[As to taxpayers’ actions, see note in Ann. Cas. 1913C, 895.]
Municipal Corporations — Public Improvements — Remonstrance.
5. Under a city charter providing that the owner or owners of two thirds of the land next adjacent to a street to be improved may file a written remonstrance against the proposed improvement, an administrator cannot sign a remonstrance on behalf of the real estate of the property under administration.
From Marion: William Galloway, Judge.
Statement by Mr. Justice Benson.
A suit was brought in tbe Circuit Court for Marion County by J. G. Lais, J. M. Brown, E. J. Brown, M. Small, J. H. Brewer, A. F. Blackerby and Sopbia Blackerby, to enjoin the City of Silverton from letting contracts and assessing plaintiff’s property for certain street improvements. From a decree dissolving ,a temporary injunction and dismissing the suit, plaintiffs have appealed, and the case is presented to us now upon the motion of appellants for an order of this court enjoining defendant from levying upon, attempting to sell, or selling any of the property of plaintiffs, in carrying out such street improvement, pending the final disposition of this suit. There is also submitted a petition of plaintiffs asking this court to admit in evidence upon the hearing here a copy of an assessment ordinance enacted by defendant since the appeal was. taken herein, or to remand the case to the .lower court, with directions to admit the same and consider it.
Injunction Granted. Petition Denied.
Mr. Robert H. Down and Mr. Walter C. Winslow, for appellants.
Mr. Custer E. Ross and Mr. John E. McNary, for respondent.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Benson
delivered the opinion of the court.
Upon the authority of Livesley v. Krebs Hop Co., 57 Or. 354 (97 Pac. 718, 107 Pac. 460, 112 Pac. 1), we think the motion for an injunction until the further order of this court should be granted. We are not advised of any authority which would justify us in making an order admitting in evidence an ordinance enacted since the appeal was perfected, and the petition therefor must he denied.
Injunction Granted. Petition Denied.