Hurlburt v. Chrisman
Oregon Supreme Court
From Lane: Jambs W. Hamilton, Judge. Department 2. The plaintiffs are children of Mrs. E. E. Cummins. The two defendants are husband and wife, the former of whom for convenience will be treated herein as the sole defendant.
Read the full summary
From Lane: Jambs W. Hamilton, Judge. Department 2. The plaintiffs are children of Mrs. E. E. Cummins. The two defendants are husband and wife, the former of whom for convenience will be treated herein as the sole defendant. The complaint alleges, in substance, that on April 2, 1900, the mother of the plaintiffs was the owner in fee simple of certain described lands in Lane County, and at that time was indebted to the defendant in the sum of $4,000, to secure which she delivered to him a warranty deed conveying to him the property, and that the defendant, at the same time, for the purpose of…
1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, C. J.
1. It is a matter of little difficulty to reach the conclusion that the deed, which was accompanied by a contract to sell the land to the mother of the plaintiffs on her paying to the defendant the precise amount of the indebtedness and one half of the taxes, constituted a mortgage. We may arrive at that from the answer of the defendant, together with his own testimony. He says in his pleading that, by virtue of the oral agreement made in the spring of 1901, the mother “released her right to redeem said real property” and that he “canceled the debt against said E. E. Cummins.” These indicia…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Davis v. DemmingWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1877
- Anderson v. BaxterOregon Supreme Court · 1871
- Caufield v. ClarkOregon Supreme Court · 1889
- Thompson v. MarshallOregon Supreme Court · 1891
- Caro v. WollenbergOregon Supreme Court · 1913
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Knecht v. SPAKEOregon Supreme Court · 1959
- Cooley v. HendersonOregon Supreme Court · 1924