Aiken v. Coolidge
| Citation | 6 P. 712,12 Or. 244 |
| Parties | AIKEN v. COOLIDGE and others. |
| Decision Date | 20 April 1885 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Oregon |
Appeal from Marion county.
T. Ford and R. Mallory, for appellants.
N.B Knight and W.G. Piper, for respondent.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for the county of Marion, rendered in an action commenced by the respondent in that court against the appellants as administrators of the estate of George E. Aiken, deceased, to recover a sum of money alleged to have been loaned by the respondent to the said George E. Aiken in his life-time. The respondent alleged in her complaint that said George E. Aiken died in said county on the twenty-third day of November 1883, intestate; that said appellants on the twenty-ninth day of December, 1883, were duly appointed by the county court of Marion county administrators of the estate of said decedent that on the thirty-first day of December, 1883, letters of administration were issued to the appellants by the said county court; that thereafter the appellants duly qualified and entered upon the discharge of their duties as such administrators, and ever since had been and were duly qualified and acting as such; that at the time of his death the said George E. Aiken left surviving him the respondent his widow; that during his life, and on or about the twenty-third day of March, 1882, the respondent loaned him $4,500, to be repaid to her on demand, with interest, and on the _______ day of May, 1884, the respondent presented to the appellant, as such administrator, for allowance, the said claim, duly verified by her affidavit, and demanded its allowance, but that they refused to allow it, and rejected said claim. A copy of the claim, as presented to the said administrators, was attached to the complaint as an exhibit. The complaint contained the usual allegations of non-payment of the claim, and prayer for relief. The appellants interposed a demurrer thereto upon the grounds that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, which, having been overruled, they filed an answer controverting the allegations of the complaint. The issue so formed was tried by a jury, who returned a verdict for the said amount of said claim; whereupon the judgment appealed from was entered.
The case comes here simply upon the pleadings and judgment, no bill of exceptions having been made. The grounds of error relied upon are confined to alleged defects in the complaint one of which is the form of the claim alleged to have been presented to the appellants as such administrators, and the other is that the complaint does not show that six months had expired after the granting of the letters of administration, and before the time of the commencement of the action. The appellants, after their demurrer to the complaint was overruled, answered over. This did not waive any defects in the complaint, but, after verdict, the court will give...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Watuppa Reservoir Co. v. City of Fall River
-
In re Daniel's Estate
...O.C.L.A. Moreover, the executor apparently did not reject the claim because of the insufficiency of the statement. In Aiken v. Coolidge, 12 Or. 244, 6 P. 712, the court "* * * The ordinary mode in making out claims against the estate of a deceased party is to state an account, and then veri......
-
Gilbert v. Branchflower
...that the administratrix filed her bond at the time of the appointment. The contrary would have to be shown by the appellant. Aiken v. Coolidge, 12 Or. 244, 6 P. 712. next assignment we notice is that the evidence failed to prove that the account sued on in the first cause of action had been......
-
Gschwander v. Cort
...case a more liberal intendment prevails in support of the judgment, and which we think ought to be invoked in this case. Aiken v. Coolidge, 12 Or. 244, 6 P. 712; Houghton v. Beck, 9 Or. 325; Andros Childers, 14 Or. 447, 13 P. 65; Willer v. Navigation Co., 15 Or. 153, 13 P. 768. It follows t......