Oregon Supreme Court, 1913

Purdin v. Hancock

Oregon Supreme Court · Decided October 7, 1913 · Burnett, McBride, Moore, Ramsey

67 Or. 164; 135 P. 515; 1913 Ore. LEXIS 167

Cases that cite this one

16 later published cases cite this decision.

Fresk v. Kraemer (Or. Ct. App. 2003)
State Highway Commission v. Arnold (Or. 1959)
Parks v. Farmers Insurance (Or. Ct. App. 2007)
Fresk v. Kraemer (Or. 2004)
Butler v. United Pacific Insurance Co. (Or. 1973)
Credit Service Co. v. Peters (Or. 1925)
Dryden v. Daly (Or. 1918)
Klovdahl v. Springfield (Or. 1916)
Hochfeld v. Portland (Or. 1914)
City of Salem v. H.S.B. (Or. 1987)
City of Salem v. H.S.B. (Or. Ct. App. 1985)
State Board of Higher Education v. Synod of Oregon of the United Presbyterian Church (Or. 1966)
Santiam Lumber Co. v. Conhaim (Or. 1959)
State Highway Commission v. Vella (Or. 1958)
Rawson-Works Lumber Co. v. Richardson (Idaho 1914)
Oregon R. & Nav. Co. v. Taffe (Or. 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

Mr. Justice Burnett

delivered the opinion of the court.

1. The demurrer was properly sustained. The allegations of the complaint which have been quoted contain merely conclusions of law. No fact is properly pleaded, where, for instance, it is said that “no legal notice of any meeting of the taxpayers of said road district No. 29 was posted, published, or given,” “no lawful meeting of the taxpayers of said road district No. 29 was held,” and “no legal or valid vote was had or taken in said road district to authorize any special road tax levy.” The ultimate facts showing the defects complained of should have been stated, so that the court would be able to draw the conclusion that the procedure was illegal or invalid: Longshore Printing Co. v. Howell, 26 Or. 527 (38 Pac. 547, 46 Am. St. Rep. 640, 28 L. R. A. 464); State ex rel. v. Williams, 45 Or. 314 (77 Pac. 965, 67 L. R. A. 167); Morton v. Wessinger, 58 Or. 80 (113 Pac. 7); Cook v. Howard, 59 Or. 372 (117 Pac. 320); Splonskofsky v. Minto, 62 Or. 560 (126 Pac. 15).

2. To make it effectual, a tender must not be fettered with a condition, imposed by the one making it, that a discharge shall be executed releasing him from all demands. He must rely in that respect only upon the force the law gives to the tender.

The decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

' Mr. Chief Justice McBride, Mr. Justice Moore and Mr. Justice Ramsey concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.