Powers v. Powers

• Decision Date: 29 May 1905
• Citation: 80 P. 1058,46 Or. 479
• Parties: POWERS v. POWERS.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

80 P. 1058

46 Or. 479

POWERS v. POWERS.

Supreme Court of Oregon

May 29, 1905

Appeal from Circuit Court, Linn County; Geo. H. Burnett, Judge.

Suit by Mary Ann Powers against S.B. Powers. From a decree in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

This is a suit to set aside a deed for fraud executed and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant on February 11, 1890. The plaintiff in her complaint alleges that she is the wife of one W.M. Powers and the mother of the defendant; that on February 11, 1890, she was, and still is, the owner of and in possession of the premises described in the deed in question and that they are of the value of $7,000; that for some days prior to the date mentioned, and for many days thereafter her husband was very ill and his life despaired of; that during such time the defendant, for the purpose of overreaching, wronging, and defrauding her, falsely and fraudulently represented that his father was indebted to him in a large sum, the exact amount of which he was unable to state, and that if he died he would lose the amount due him and urged and importuned her to sign a written statement to the effect that if his father died she would see him fairly treated in the settlement of the estate; that relying on such statement, and believing it to be true, she agreed to sign the statement requested; that, to carry out his purpose of overreaching and defrauding her, defendant caused a deed to be prepared, conveying the property to him in fee simple, and falsely and fraudulently represented that it was the written statement which she had agreed to sign; that relying upon such representations, and trusting in her son, she signed the deed without reading it or knowing its character, believing it to be such statement; that defendant thereupon took possession of the deed, and secretly held the same until August 8, 1902, when he caused it to be recorded; that she has remained in the possession of the property since the execution of the deed, receiving and enjoying the rents and profits thereof; that at the time of its execution the defendant's father was not indebted to him in any sum whatever, and all the statements and representations in reference thereto so made by the defendant were and are false and untrue, and were made for the purpose of overreaching and defrauding plaintiff. The defendant in his answer denies in toto the material allegations of the complaint, and avers that, at the request of plaintiff and his father, he worked and labored on the land owned by them for a period of about eight years, for which services they agreed to pay; that on or about the 8th day of February, 1890, he had an accounting and settlement with the plaintiff, wherein it was ascertained and agreed that she and his father owed him for such work and labor about $3,000; that the deed in question was executed and delivered in payment thereof, it being understood and agreed, however, that plaintiff should have the use and occupation of the premises and enjoy the rents and profits thereof so long as she lived, but by mistake such reservation of a life estate was omitted from the deed, and the answer asks to have it reformed accordingly. The reply denied the material affirmative allegations of the answer, and, upon the issues thus joined, the cause was tried and a decree entered reforming the deed as prayed for by the defendant, but otherwise dismissing the complaint. From this decree the plaintiff appeals.

H.H Hewitt and J.J. Whitney, for appellant.

M.E. Pogue, for respondent.

BEAN J. (after stating the facts).

Much of appellant's brief is devoted to a discussion of the question whether the findings of fact of the trial court are supported by the evidence. Under our statute, on an appeal from a decree in a suit in equity the cause is tried de novo upon the transcript and evidence accompanying it, and a final decree rendered here, without reference to the findings or conclusions of the trial court. B. & C. Comp. §§ 406, 555; Gentry v. Pacific Live Stock Co., 77 P. 115. It is unnecessary, therefore, to examine the findings seriatim to determine whether they are in accordance with the testimony. It is sufficient to state generally our conclusions.

The plaintiff and defendant are mother and son. It is admitted because not denied, that about the time the defendant became of age his father was considerably in debt, and it was agreed between them that if he would remain at home on the farm and help pay off the debt he should have 80 acres of land adjoining that in controversy. He worked two or three years, but became discouraged because the debts were not being paid off, and, when he attempted to talk to his father about the matter, the latter became angry and ordered him to leave. He decided to do so, and so advised his mother, who, told him that as his father was sick and the other children were small, she could not get along without him, and, if he would remain and "see them through," she would see that he was paid for his labor. There upon he took charge of the farm, consisting of about 360 acres, managed and cultivated it for about five years until his brothers became large enough to take care of things, when ...