McLeod v. Lloyd
| Decision Date | 16 March 1903 |
| Citation | McLeod v. Lloyd, 43 Or. 260, 71 P. 795 (Or. 1903) |
| Parties | McLEOD v. LLOYD. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Lane County; J.W. Hamilton, Judge.
Action by G.B. McLeod against Clyde D. Lloyd.From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.Affirmed.
This is a suit to remove an alleged cloud upon the title to real property.It is averred in the complaint, in substance, that plaintiff is the absolute and unqualified owner of the S.W 1/4, Sec. 12, the N.E. 1/4, the E. 1/2, S.E. 1/4, the S.E 1/4 N.W. 1/4, and the N.W. 1/4 S.E. 1/4, Sec. 14, Tp. 24 S range 1 E. of the Willamette meridian, containing 480 acres more or less, "as is shown by the abstract of title hereto attached, marked 'Exhibit A' and made a part hereof.""That said lands are all unseated unimproved, and unoccupied,and not in the actual possession of any person."That defendant claims some interest, right of title thereto, which claim is unfounded, illegal, unjust, and contrary to law and to equity, "as is shown by the said Exhibit A; but that the pretended deeds noted and set out at Nos. 3, 7, and 10 of said Exhibit A, and the said claim of defendant, have created and constitute a cloud upon plaintiff's title to said lands, although null and void both in law and equity; and that defendant refuses to relinquish such claim, though requested so to do.""That plaintiff has no plain, speedy, adequate, or any remedy at law."The complaint is verified by plaintiff's attorney, and his affidavit, in addition to the statutory requirement, is to the effect that he had personally examined the records of Lane county, and compared therewith the abstract of title attached to the complaint, and that said abridgment is a true, full, correct, and complete abstract of title to all of said lands.The abstract of title, or Exhibit A, omitting therefrom the reservations, in the United States patents, of vested and accrued water rights, etc., is as follows: A demurrer to the complaint, on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of suit, having been overruled, a plea in abatement was interposed to the effect that plaintiff was not the real party in interest, but that he held the legal title to said real property in trust for the Astoria Company, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of this state.A demurrer to the plea, on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense, having been sustained, the defendant declined further to plead or answer, whereupon the court found the facts as stated in the complaint, and gave a decree canceling the deeds executed by Watkins, Carson, and Warwick to the defendant, removing the clouds cast thereby on plaintiff's title, and forever enjoining the defendant from asserting any...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
- Wallowa County v. Wade
-
McLeod v. Lloyd
...Or. 260 McLEOD v. LLOYD. [*] Supreme Court of OregonDecember 14, 1903 On motion to recall mandate. Motion denied. For former opinion, see 71 P. 795. PER This is a motion to recall the mandate in order that a provision may be inserted therein permitting the defendant to apply to the court be......