Priester v. Thrall

Decision Date12 September 1961
Citation229 Or. 184,365 P.2d 1050
PartiesEldon L. PRIESTER and Ruby H. Priester, husband and wife, Respondents, v. Harry THRALL and Ardath Thrall, husband and wife, Appellants. . Submitted on Appellants' Brief
CourtOregon 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:

'In an action at law where the defendant is entitled to relief, arising out of facts requiring the interposition of a court of equity, * * *. When such an equitable matter is interposed, the proceedings at law shall be stayed and the case shall thereafter proceed, until the determination of the issues thus raised, as a suit in equity by which the proceedings at law may be perpetually enjoined or allowed to proceed in accordance with the final decree; or such equitable relief as is proper may be given to either party. If, after determining the equities, as interposed by answer or reply, the case is allowed to proceed at law, the pleadings containing the equitable matter shall be considered withdrawn from the case, and the court shall allow such pleadings in the law action as are provided for in actions of law.'

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
3 cases
  • State ex rel. Nilsen v. Whited
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • November 25, 1964 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.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • June 13, 1984 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
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 11, 1963
    ...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 ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT