Littlepage v. Security Savings & Trust Co.
| Decision Date | 13 October 1931 |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
| Parties | LITTLEPAGE v. SECURITY SAVINGS & TRUST CO. |
Department 1.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County; George Tazwell, Judge.
Proceedings for allowance of claim of Maude Littlepage against the estate of Joseph Philip Zirnbiebel, deceased. From an order allowing the claim, the Security Savings & Trust Company, executor appeals.
Modified and affirmed.
S. R. Diefendorf, of Portland (L. A. Wells, of Portland, on the brief), for appellant.
John C Veatch, of Portland (Joseph, Haney & Veatch, of Portland, on the brief), for respondent.
This is an appeal from an order of the probate department of the circuit court of Multnomah county which allowed the claim of the respondent against the estate of Joseph Philip Zirnbiebel, deceased, for "services in caring for deceased from September 3, 1924, to September 9, 1929," and decreed as the reasonable value of her services the sum of $5,000.
Section 11-504, Oregon Code 1930, provides: "No claim which shall have been rejected by the executor or administrator, as aforesaid, shall be allowed by any court, referee or jury except upon some competent satisfactory evidence other than the testimony of the claimant."
The issues are: (1) Whether the claimant performed services for the deceased for which the two expected that payment should be made; (2) whether the evidence in support of the claim other than that of the claimant, is sufficiently satisfactory to meet the demands of the above section of our laws; and (3) the reasonable value of the alleged services.
This court has upon so many occasions defined the nature, character, and quantity of the "competent, satisfactory evidence other than the testimony of the claimant," essential to establish a rejected claim, that it is unnecessary to undertake to do so in the course of this decision. However, we pause to observe that the reasonable value of the services may be established by the testimony of the claimant alone ( Franklin v. Northrup, 107 Or. 537, 215 P. 494), and since payment is an affirmative defense ( L. B. Menefee Lumber Co. v. MacDonald, 122 Or. 579, 260 P. 444), which the executor in a proceeding of this character has the burden of establishing ( Godfrey v. Howes, 91 Or. 98, 178 P. 388, and 24 C.J., Executors and Administrators, p. 859, § 2175), the claimant was not required to introduce proof of nonpayment, in the first instance, nor was she required to corroborate her proof after the executor had produced the slight proof of payment which he represented. Estate of Kukas, 120 Or. 542, 252 P. 947.
The claimant testified that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Stoll's Estate
... ... Harbaugh, 110 Or. 609, 616, 224 P. 89; ... Seaton v. Security Savings & Trust Co., 131 Or. 261, ... 268, 271, 282 P. 556 ... corroboration. Littlepage v. Security Savings & Trust ... Co., 137 Or. 559, 560, 3 P.2d 752 ... ...
-
Johnson v. Ranes
...from the testimony of plaintiff, but her testimony alone could prove the reasonable value of her services. Littlepage v. Security S & T Co., 137 Or. 559, 560, 3 P.2d 752 (1931); Franklin v. Northrup, 107 Or. 537, 554, 215 P. 494 (1923). Moreover, because payment is a defense, plaintiff did ......
-
Cronn v. Fisher
...the jury was entitled to find an implied promise to pay. * * *' (171 Or. at 436, 137 P.2d at 831) Also see Littlepage v. Security S. & T. Co., 137 Or. 559, 560, 3 P.2d 752 (1931); Richter v. Derby, supra, 135 Or. at 403, 295 P. 457; Estate of McLain, supra, 126 Or. at 464, 270 P. 534; Frank......
-
Wagner v. Savage
...proved, and upon the defendant rests the burden of proof. The rule is aptly stated by Mr. Justice Rossman in Littlepage v. Security Savings & Trust Co., 137 Or. 559, 560, 3 P.2d 752, as '* * *. * * * and since payment is an affirmative defense (L. B. Menefee Lumber Co. v. MacDonald, 122 Or.......