Victor Land Co. v. Winters
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision.
- National Surety Corp. v. Smith (Or. 1941)
- Guthrie v. Haun (Or. 1938)
- Hamilton v. Baggage & Omnibus Transfer Co. (Or. 1920)
- Brown v. Bonesteele (Or. 1959)
- Werner v. City of Albuquerque (N.M. 1951)
- Turner v. Cyrus (Or. 1919)
- Watts v. Spokane, P. & S. Ry. Co. (Or. 1918)
- West v. Kern (Or. 1918)
- Siverson v. Clanton (Or. 1918)
- Columbia Realty Investment Co. v. Alameda Land Co. (Or. 1917)
- Stettler v. O'Hara (Or. 1914)
- Clackamas Southern Ry. Co. v. Vick (Or. 1914)
- Barstow v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1913)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
Section 3071, B. & C. Comp., which was the law in force in 1899, required the assessor, in listing real property for assessment, to give the number of each lot and block, and the full cash value of each parcel. Section 3122 requires a sale of each parcel. These provisions are not complied with when there is a lump assessment and sale of several distinct parcels or lots. Bays v. Trulson, 25 Or. 109 (35 Pac. 26: 46 Am. & Eng. Corp. C. 368); Bretano v. Bretano, 41 Or. 15 (67 Pac. 922). These cases have so thoroughly settled the law in this State that it is unnecessary to consider the holding of other jurisdictions on this subject.
The certificates of the sheriff, as to the two sales, to Multnomah County indicate that there was also a lump sale of the two lots, instead of separate sales of each, and the sale was void for that reason.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.