In re Wakefield's Estate
Decision Date | 18 April 1939 |
Citation | 161 Or. 330,89 P.2d 592 |
Parties | In re WAKEFIELD'S ESTATE. v. MOORE et al. MARTIN et al. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Klamath County; Edward B. Ashurst, Judge.
On petition for rehearing.
Petition denied.
For former opinion, see 87 P.2d 794.
I. H. Van Winkle, Atty. Gen., Sanderson Reed, of Salem, and A. W. Schaupp, of Klamath Falls, for appellant.
Haas & Schwabe, of Portland, for respondents.
The court confesses error in holding that this proceeding was an action at law and that the findings of the lower court were conclusive if supported by any substantial evidence. We are convinced, upon reconsideration, that, since the administration of the estate was pending in the probate court, the proceeding is in equity and, on appeal, this court is not bound by the findings of the trial court, although the same are persuasive. In making such confession of error about the only consolation we have is that counsel seem to have been equally confused.
We think the proceeding is governed by § 11-1201, Oregon Code Supp.1935, which provides as follows:
It is not, as contended by counsel for the State Land Board, a suit to determine who are heirs to an estate, as provided in §§ 11-901 to 11-906, inclusive, Oregon Code 1930. The State Land Board, in the probate proceeding, asserted that there were no heirs. It was proper for it to appear in the probate proceedings and make such contention for the purpose of having the "clear proceeds" of the estate escheat to the State. In such...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Cruson's Estate
...by the State in this proceeding was evidently patterned upon the procedure delineated in Re Wakefield's Estate, 161 Or. 330, 87 P.2d 794, 89 P.2d 592. That decision sustained the regularity of procedure and deemed the cause as 'in equity.' It said: 'On appeal, this court is not bound by the......
-
Friesen v. Fuiten
...great weight. Reeves et ux. v. Dickenson et ux., 208 Or. 360, 300 P.2d 458 (1956); In re Wakefield's Estate, 161 Or. 330, 87 P.2d 794, 89 P.2d 592 (1931). The dialogue of the trial court with plaintiff Robert Friesen at the conclusion of his testimony is 'THE COURT: Why did you draw $1500 o......
-
State ex rel. Henry v. Malhman
...87 Ga. 28, 13 S.E. 158, 12 L.R.A. 529, 530; Peterkin's, Lessee v. Inloes, 4 Md. 175; In Re Wakefield's Estate, 161 Or. 330, 87 P.2d 794, 89 P.2d 592; In Re Smith's Estate, supra; and 19 Am.Jur. Escheat, Sec. 41, p. 407. In the reported case of State v. Williams, supra (Ann.Cas., 1913E, p. 3......
-
George H. Buckler Co. v. Hood River County
...judgment, treating the court's findings of fact as equivalent to a verdict. See In re Wakefield's Estate, 161 Or. 330, 336, 87 P.2d 794, 89 P.2d 592. It, therefore, becomes necessary to review the evidence. In that connection there was a wide divergence of opinion as to whether the material......