TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Willis v. Smith

Willis v. Smith, 58 P. 527 (Or. 1899)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Oregon Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 16, 1899
Judges
Wolvebton
Citations
58 P. 52736 Or. 6011899 Ore. LEXIS 99
Disposition
Affirmed.
Summary
Prom Douglas : J. C. Fullerton, Judge. Suit by Wm. E. Willis as administrator of the estate of M. B. Holmes, deceased, to uncover certain alleged assets in the hands of George A. Smith.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Wolvebton

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Mb,. Chief Justice Wolvebton

delivered the opinion.

The plaintiff is the administrator of the estate of M. B. Holmes, who died intestate February 3,1894. There were claims against the estate presented and allowed, aggregating $3,375.21, and this suit was instituted for the purpose of subjecting certain real and personal property, alleged to be in the possession of the defendant, to the payment thereof. It is alleged, among other things, that on or about the eighteenth day of August, 1893, M. B. Holmes was the owner of the real and personal property in controversy; that on or about the date named he made a voluntary transfer thereof to the defendant, for the purpose of cheating and defrauding his creditors ; that defendant paid no consideration therefor, but took the same with notice and knowledge of such purpose; and that said property is all that the deceased had or possessed at the date of the alleged transfer, or at the time of his death. The prayer is that said transfer be decreed to be fraudulent and void as to the plaintiff; that it be set aside, and the property subjected to the payment of said claims. The defendant admits the transfer, but denies that it was made voluntarily, or for the purpose of cheating or defrauding the creditors of said Holmes, or that he took or received the same with knowledge of Holmes ’ alleged intention to defraud his creditors, or that he was indebted to any one at the time ; and, for a further defense, sets up that he purchased the property in good faith, for a valuable consideration, to wit, $5,500, which he paid at the time, and which was received and accepted by the said Holmes in full payment therefor. These allegations of the answer were denied by the reply, and upon the issues thus formed trial was had, and, the findings of the court below being in favor of the defendant, the suit was dismissed.

*603 The questions presented by the record are purely of fact. We have carefully and critically examined and reviewed the testimony submitted at the trial of the cause, and, from a survey of the whole, we are impressed that the defendant has made the better case. Owing to the large number of cases upon the docket now being pressed for our consideration, and as no good purpose can be sub-served thereby, we will not take time to review the testimony here. The conclusion reached being in accord with the findings of the lower court, the decree will be affirmed.

Aeeirmed .

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1902: 119022026peak 1902 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Larch Mountain Invest. Co. v. Garbade68 P. 6 (Or. 1902)

Most recent

  1. Larch Mountain Invest. Co. v. Garbade68 P. 6 (Or. 1902)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list