Gray v. Perry

• Decision Date: 13 November 1893
• Parties: GRAY v. PERRY et al.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

34 P. 691

25 Or. 1

GRAY v. PERRY et al.

Supreme Court of Oregon

November 13, 1893

Appeal from circuit court, Multnomah county; L.B. Stearns, Judge.

Action by Charles H. Gray against Jefferson Perry and others to enforce a claim on land in defendants' possession. From a decree directing the land to be sold, and the proceeds to be applied for the payment of claims in a specified order defendant Perry and plaintiff appeal. Affirmed.

Thos. N. Strong and F.D. Chamberlain, for appellant Perry.

W.M Gregory, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

This is a suit to enforce a claim upon real property. The facts show that on May 1, 1890, the defendant Walter Corbin entered into a contract with Messrs. Haight & Donner, whereby they, in consideration of $110 paid down, and of $790 payable in installments of $20 on the 1st of each month agreed to convey to him lots 11 and 12 of block 12 of Maegly Highland, in Multnomah county, Or. Said contract contains a provision that, if default be made in the payment of any installment, it shall be optional with them to declare the contract canceled, and the amount paid thereon forfeited. Mr Corbin entered into possession of the lots, made improvements thereon, and paid the installments to and including that of January 1, 1891, but made no payments thereafter. That on July 31, 1890, the plaintiff loaned $300 to Mr. Corbin, who as security therefor, executed and delivered to him a deed of said lots, and since that time made payments to the plaintiff which reduce the amount now due to $212.33. That on November 14, 1891, these lots, with the improvements, were reasonably worth $1,300, while there was due on the contract only $872.20, and on that day G.T. Donner, who had acquired the legal title from Messrs. Haight & Donner, conveyed them and another lot to the defendant Jefferson Perry, who is the father-in-law of the plaintiff, and of the defendant Walter Corbin. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant Perry advanced the amount due upon the contract as a loan to the defendant Corbin, and, by agreement with him, took the legal title as security therefor. The defendant Perry denied these allegations, and, for a separate answer and defense, alleged that, before these lots were conveyed to him, G.T. Donner had declared a forfeiture of the payments made by the defendant Corbin, and canceled the contract, and that he had purchased the property, and taken the title for his own use and...