Priester v. Thrall
Decision Date | 12 September 1961 |
Citation | 229 Or. 184,365 P.2d 1050 |
Parties | Eldon L. PRIESTER and Ruby H. Priester, husband and wife, Respondents, v. Harry THRALL and Ardath Thrall, husband and wife, Appellants. . Submitted on Appellants' Brief |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Reuben Lenske, Portland, for appellants.
No appearance for respondents.
The plaintiffs commenced a forcible entry and detainer action in the district court of Multnomah county to recover possession of certain real property in the possession of the defendants. By answer, the defendants alleged they were the equitable owners of the property and the plaintiffs held only the naked legal title as trustees for the defendants. The case was thereupon transferred from the district court of Multnomah county to the circuit court, where the court of equity proceeded first to determine the equitable defense interposed. The trial court found for the plaintiffs and against the defendants. The defendants thereupon prosecuted this appeal.
The defendants' first assignment of error is: 'The court erred in requiring defendants to proceed with their equitable defense before making plaintiffs prove they were entitled to possession except for such defense.'
No citations of authority for this statement are set out, showing that counsel made no attempt to brief this matter. The defendants' contention is frivolous.
ORS 16.460 specifically provides:
The defendants' second contention is likewise totally without merit.
Defendants say the court erroneously admitted in evidence a memorandum agreement, which was executed by the plaintiffs and defendants after the plaintiffs had...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Nilsen v. Whited
...foundation for its validity: State v. Harmon, 1961, 225 Or. 571, 358 P.2d 1048; Priester v. Thrall, 1961, 229 Or. 184, 349 P.2d 866, 365 P.2d 1050; Simons v. Smith, 1961, 229 Or. 277, 366 P.2d Due Process does not foreclose legislation reasonably desigened to meet the exigencies of public n......
-
Goldie's Bookstore v. Superior Court of Cal., Civ. S-83-825 RAR.
...be affirmed, the bond is automatically forfeited without proof of actual damage. Preister v. Thrall, 229 Or. 184, 187, 349 P.2d 866, 365 P.2d 1050 (1960). The Supreme Court struck down this double-bond provision because it heavily burdened the statutory right to appeal without furthering an......
-
Ketring v. Sturges
...contained an exception in instances when the defendant was 'acting under direct personal supervision of legally qualified personal.' 365 P.2d 1050. No issue in this regard has been presented in this ...