Lombard v. Carter
| Decision Date | 26 December 1899 |
| Citation | 59 P. 473,36 Or. 266 |
| Parties | LOMBARD v. CARTER et al. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Multnomah county; Loyal B. Stearns Judge.
Action by B.M. Lombard against Loring S. Carter and another. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
The facts which characterize this case are substantially as follows: On July 16, 1895, the will of Minerva Carter deceased, was admitted to probate, and the defendant Walter V. Smith appointed administrator of her estate. By the provisions of the will, the defendant Loring S. Carter was entitled to a legacy of $2,100 and a share as heir in the residuum of the estate. On November 29, 1895, Carter, being largely indebted to Smith, sold, assigned, and transferred said legacy, and all other right, title, and interest he then had in said estate, to Smith's wife. While the assignment was made to the wife, it was in reality for the benefit of the husband, and was so understood at the time it was made. Subsequently, on March 3, 1897, the plaintiff obtained a judgment against Carter for the sum of $265.60, which being duly docketed he instituted this suit to set aside said assignment, and to enjoin Carter from further disposing of his interest in said estate. There are no allegations of fraud in the complaint, but in the reply it is set forth that the assignment "was made with the intent to hinder delay, and defraud creditors and other persons of their lawful suits, damages, debts, and demands." There was no evidence of fraud, unless the facts above stated can be so construed. The decree of the court below was for the defendants, and plaintiff appeals.
J.T McKee and B.M. Lombard, for appellant.
Catlin, Kollock & Catlin, for respondents.
WOLVERTON C.J. (after stating the facts).
The case was submitted on briefs, without oral argument, and the only contention made by plaintiff is that the assignment is void under section 1166, Hill's Ann.Laws Or., which provides as follows: It is assumed that the plaintiff stands in Carter's shoes, and comes within the purview of the inhibition of the statute. Conceding, but not deciding, that such is the case, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
First Nat. Bank v. Connolly
...of the estate by an administrator at his own sale, and does not apply to a purchase of the interest of an heir or legatee. Lombard v. Carter, 36 Or. 266, 59 P. 473. It is asserted in plaintiff's brief that what was said in Lombard v. Carter on this subject "was more or less dicta". There is......
- Betts v. State ex rel. Jorgenson
-
Venator v. Quier
...will of the decedent, or a contract or other instrument, executed by the decedent." 2 (Emphasis added) Plaintiff cites Lombard v. Castor, 36 Or. 266, 59 P. 473 (1899), and First Nat. Bank v. Connolly, 172 Or. 434, 138 P.2d 613, 143 P.2d 243 (1943), as holding that an administrator of an est......
-
Gilbert v. Branchflower
... ... administrator cannot become a purchaser of property of the ... estate at his own sale. Section 1276, Or. L.; Lombard v ... Carter, 36 Or. 266, 59 P. 473; Marquam v. Ross, ... 47 Or. 374, 404, 78 P. 698, 83 P. 852, 86 P. 1; Acton v ... Lamberson, ... ...