Paris v. Smith
| Decision Date | 28 September 1960 |
| Parties | Estle L. PARIS and Ardath Paris, husband and wife, Appellants, v. Glenn SMITH and Clara A. Smith, husband and wife; John Daugherty and Margaret Daugherty, husband and wife; Mark Averill and Jane Doe Averill, husband and wife; Ralph Averill and Mary Doe Averill, husband and wife; and Sun Studs, Inc., an Oregon corporation, Respondents, Glenn Smith, Respondent and Cross-Appellant. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Gordon G. Carlson, Roseburg, argued the cause for appellants. On the brief were Yates, Murphy & Carlson, Roseburg.
Robert M. Stults, Roseburg, argued the cause for respondents Glenn Smith and Clara Smith and for cross-appellant Glenn Smith. With him on the briefs was Don H. Sanders, Roseburg.
George W. Neuner, Roseburg, argued the cause for respondents Mark Averill and Ralph Averill. With him on the brief were Clark W. Adams, Aberdeen, Wash., and Long, Neuner & Dole, Roseburg.
Before McALLISTER, C. J., and WARNER, SLOAN, O'CONNELL and HOWELL, JJ.
This was a suit in partition. This issues to be decided were derived from conflicting claims of ownership to two separate undivided one-sixth interests in the real property to be partitioned. Plaintiff claimed ownership of one of the one-sixth interests which was disputed by the defendants Glenn Smith and Clara A. Smith. The title to the other one-sixth interest involved a conflict between the defendant, and in respect to this claim, cross-appellant, Glenn Smith and the defendants Mark Averill and Ralph Averill. Other conflicting claims in the trial of the case have not been appealed. The land in dispute is timberland situate in Douglas County.
Several years ago the land was owned by one B. B. Averill. Upon the death of that individual, title to the property became vested in six brothers and sisters. One of the sisters was one Harriet, also described as Tryphena, Edson. Harriet Edson resided in Michigan. When she died, about 1935, her one-sixth interest in the real property was devised to a trustee for the benefit of her brothers and sisters. Her estate was probated in Michigan. In 1950 defendant Clara Smith obtained a deed from the trustee of the Harriet Edson estate. Clara Smith did not record the deed.
In 1954 plaintiff became interested in buying the property. He retained the firm of Yates, Murphy and Carlson of Roseburg to assist him in doing so. The dispute between plaintiff and defendant Clara Smith results from the failure of Clara Smith to record the deed to her of the Edson one-sixth interest. Because of her failure to record, and thereby establish her claim of title, plaintiff also accepted a deed from the same trustee of the Edson estate and paid valuable consideration for it. The question to be decided is: Did plaintiff have actual knowledge of defendant Clara Smith's deed and was he a bona fide purchaser?
The issue is one of fact. When plaintiff was negotiating to buy the land, his attorney, Yates, called on Mrs. Smith at her home in Tacoma. Notes made by Yates at that time reveal that Mrs. Smith told him she had an unrecorded deed. Mrs. Smith testified she exhibited the deed to Yates, he denied it. It is clear that Yates was advised that Mrs. Smith claimed she had a deed. However, Yates chose to disbelieve Mrs. Smith's claim and paid for and accepted the deed from the trustee without adequate inquiry as to the trustee's title at that time. The trial court's finding in regard to this evidence was:
attorney Spencer W. Yates did not see the Runciman to Smith deed dated March 28, 1951, while conferring with Mrs. Smith in Tacoma, Washington, or with her attorney Robert Cooper of Tacoma in 1954.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Willis v. Stager
...contract, unless they could show that such knowledge could not have been acquired by reasonable diligence.' See also Paris v. Smith, 224 Or. 95, 98, 355 P.2d 635 (1960), and Merrill, Supra, 423--4, § 461. In this case defendants were told by Mrs. Lemire that she had sold all of her property......