Furuset v. Mays
Oregon Supreme Court
From Multnomah: William Galloway, Judge. Department 1. This is a suit to compel a conveyance of an undivided one third of certain lots in what is known as “Rosemont Addition to East Portland.” In 1891, plaintiff being the holder of the legal title to certain lands, conveyed the same to defendant as trustee, to sell and dispose of the same for the mutual benefit of plaintiff, defendant and one A. S. Haskell.
Read the full summary
From Multnomah: William Galloway, Judge. Department 1. This is a suit to compel a conveyance of an undivided one third of certain lots in what is known as “Rosemont Addition to East Portland.” In 1891, plaintiff being the holder of the legal title to certain lands, conveyed the same to defendant as trustee, to sell and dispose of the same for the mutual benefit of plaintiff, defendant and one A. S. Haskell. The obligation assumed by the trustee was to sell and dispose of the property, pay all liens and encumbrances thereon, all taxes and assessments, and all expenses incident to holding and…
1Opinion of the CourtBenson, J.
1, 2. The entire case for the plaintiff is based upon the theory that the purposes of the trust were entirely concluded when the unsold lots were, by conveyance from the trustee, divided among the associates, and that by reason thereof, neither Rometsch nor Haskell is a necessary party to this litigation. This attitude is contrary to the express admissions of the reply as quoted in our statement of the ease, and is not supported by the evidence. The testimony establishes very clearly that the lots which by mutual consent were divided among the three beneficiaries of the trust were unsalable,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Kollock v. BennettOregon Supreme Court · 1909