Beebe v. McKenzie
Oregon Supreme Court
Appeal from Union county: J. A. Fee, judge. This is an action of ejectment, brought by the plaintiff against the defendant to recover the land described in the complaint. Both parties deraign title to the land from one Thus. McKenzie, deceased, — the plaintiff by deed, and the defendant' as an heir at law. The cause was tried without the intervention of a jury, and judgment went for the plaintiff, from which this appeal is brought.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Union county: J. A. Fee, judge. This is an action of ejectment, brought by the plaintiff against the defendant to recover the land described in the complaint. Both parties deraign title to the land from one Thus. McKenzie, deceased, — the plaintiff by deed, and the defendant' as an heir at law. The cause was tried without the intervention of a jury, and judgment went for the plaintiff, from which this appeal is brought. At the trial, the plaintiff in support of her claim, offered in evidence the following instrument in writing: “This indenture witnesseth: That Thomas McKenzie, for…
1Opinion of the CourtLord, J.
The only question presented by this record is as to the validity of the above instrument as a deed, the defendant contending that although-in'form a deed, it is a will,-..but if *298not a will, tbat it is a deed that attempts to create an estate to commence in futuro, and is therefore void. To determine the nature of an instrument, the intention of the maker to be collected from the whole instrument, subject to the rules of law, is the pole star by which to be guided. The fact that it is in form and phraseology a deed signifies nothing; if it is plain from the language used and what is appointed…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Plymale v. KeeneMontana Supreme Court · 1926
- Deckenbach v. DeckenbachOregon Supreme Court · 1913
- Neil v. NeilOregon Supreme Court · 1924
- Ward v. WardCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1898
- Griffith v. DouglasSupreme Court of Georgia · 1904
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.