Title Trust Co. v. Wharton

3 Citing cases

  1. Peters v. McKay

    195 Or. 412 (Or. 1952)   Cited 24 times
    Noting that "the great mass of federal and state decisions" support the view that the statute of limitations is suspended during war

    In construing the escheat statute it must be frankly conceded that the general rule is that the legislative intent must control; that such intent is ordinarily to be found from the phraseology of the statute; and that consent statutes, being in derogation of sovereignty, are generally construed with reasonable strictness. Cary v. Metropolitan Insurance Co., 141 Or. 388, 17 P.2d 1111; Title Trust Co. v. Wharton, 166 Or. 612, 114 P.2d 140; Federal Land Bank v. Schermerhorn, 155 Or. 533, 64 P.2d 1337. However, the issue here must be determined by the application of other rules of construction equally well established.

  2. Corbett Inves't Co. v. State Tax Com

    181 Or. 244 (Or. 1947)   Cited 16 times

    However, when a statute is reasonably susceptible of different construction — one of which leads to a harsh and absurd result — we think the court should adopt the construction sounding more in equity and justice. We are not unmindful of the secondary rule of construction that exemption provisions are to be construed strictly, Title Trust Co. v. Wharton, 166 Or. 612, 114 P.2d 140, but such rule cannot control when the intention to grant the exemption is clearly expressed. As was well said by Mr. Justice Cardozo, speaking for the court in Trotter v. Tennessee, 290 U.S. 354, 78 L.Ed. 358, 54 S.Ct. 138:

  3. Emanuel Lutheran Charity Board v. Department of Revenue

    4 OTR 410 (Or. T.C. 1971)   Cited 22 times
    In Emanuel Lutheran Char. v. Dept. of Rev. (Emanual I), 4 OTR 410, 422-23 (1971), Judge Roberts wrote: “The property of nongovernmental charitable institutions must conform to certain prerequisites, no matter how worthy the institution's purposes may be. Matters of degree become important and lines must be drawn, if the legislative intent is to be fulfilled.

    " See Northwest Auto Co. v. Hurlburt, 104 Or. 398, 411, 207 P. 161 (1922); Corporation of Sisters of Mercy v. Lane Co., 123 Or. 144, 152, 261 P. 694 (1927); Kappa Gamma Rho v. Marion County, 130 Or. 165, 177, 279 P. 555 (1929); State ex rel. Harth v. Phipps, 136 Or. 454, 459, 299 P. 1009 (1931); Poe v. State Treasurer, 144 Or. 561, 25 P.2d 924 (1933); Ballou v. Fisher, 154 Or. 548, 553, 61 P.2d 423 (1936); Title Trust Co. v. Wharton, 166 Or. 612, 620, 114 P.2d 140 (1941); Puget Sound B. D. Co. v. S.U.C.C., 168 Or. 614, 621, 126 P.2d 37 (1942); Benton Co. v. Allen et al., 170 Or. 481, 484, 133 P.2d 991 (1943); Behnke-Walker v. Multnomah County, 173 Or. 510, 521, 146 P.2d 614 (1944); Allen v. Multnomah County, 179 Or. 548, 552, 173 P.2d 475 (1946) ("* * * the intent of the legislature to exempt must be clear beyond a reasonable doubt * * *"); Methodist Book Concern v. St. Tax Com'n, 186 Or. 585, 592, 208 P.2d 319 (1949); Keyes v. Chambers, et al, 209 Or. 640, 645, 307 P.2d 498 (1957); Unander v. Pasquill et al., 212 Or. 212, 223, 319 P.2d 579 (1957); Mult. School of Bible v. Mult. Co., 218 Or. 19, 27, 343 P.2d 893 (1959) (the "strict but reasonable construction" case); Ore. Physicians' Serv. v. State Tax Com., 220 Or. 487, 493, 349 P.2d 831 (1960); Unander v. U.S. Nat'l Bank, et al, 224 Or. 144, 150, 355 P.2d 729 (1960); Pac. Supply Coop. v. State Tax Com., 224 Or. 556, 560, 356 P.2d 939 (1960); Methodist Homes, Inc. v. Tax Com., 226 Or. 298, 307, 360