Beekman v. Hamlin
Oregon Supreme Court
Jackson County: Lionel R. Webster, Judge. This is a proceeding under section 295, Hill’s Code, for leave to issue execution on a dormant judgment, and was commenced in 1889. On the first trial the court di* rectecl a verdict for the plaintiff, and defendant appealed. The two opinions reversing that ruling are reported in 19 Or. 383 (24 Pac. Rep. 195), and 20 Or. 352 (25 Pac. Rep. 672). On a second trial judgment went for the defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtLord, C. J.
1. It is first objected that the admission* of the assessment rolls of Jackson County for the years of 1873 to 1880 was error. The ground of the objection is, that the property, real and personal, described in such rolls is not even prima facie evidence that the person named in them is in fact the owner of such property, as against the plaintiff; and that if this is so, the assessment rolls received in evidence were not competent to prove that the defendant was solvent during the period covered by them, as that would depend on the defendant’s ownership of the property described in them.
The…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Kearney v. SnodgrassOregon Supreme Court · 1885
- State v. ClementsOregon Supreme Court · 1887
- McBride v. Northern Pacific R. R.Oregon Supreme Court · 1890
- Fisk v. HenarieOregon Supreme Court · 1887
- Hamilton & Rourke v. GordonOregon Supreme Court · 1892
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Mason v. MasonOregon Supreme Court · 1934
- City of Portland v. NottinghamOregon Supreme Court · 1911
- City of Pendleton v. HolmanOregon Supreme Court · 1945
- Adcock v. Oregon RailroadOregon Supreme Court · 1904
- Henrichsen v. SmithOregon Supreme Court · 1896
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.