Riggs v. Adkins

• Decision Date: 10 February 1920
• Parties: RIGGS ET UX. v. ADKINS ET AL.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

187 P. 303

95 Or. 414

RIGGS ET UX. v. ADKINS ET AL.

Supreme Court of Oregon

February 10, 1920

Department 1.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Clackamas County; J. U. Campbell, Judge.

Action by L. G. Riggs and Nettie Riggs, his wife, against Elizabeth Adkins and W. O. Vaughan, administrator of the estate of James Adkins, deceased. From decree for plaintiffs defendants appeal. Reversed, and decree entered dismissing the suit.

The substance of the complaint in this suit is that James Adkins now deceased, was the owner of some land therein described and that for about 19 years prior to his death he made his home with the plaintiffs, who are husband and wife, and about May, 1905, he agreed with them that he would convey, deed devise, or will the realty to them to take effect on his death, on condition that they would live on the property keep house, and maintain a home for him thereon and perform such other services as he might from time to time demand. The plaintiffs claim to have performed their part of the contract, specifying that they provided his food and board, did his laundry work for him, nursed and cared for him during some illness, and that Nettie Riggs, one of the plaintiffs, for a period of 14 years cooked for his logging and mill crews, consisting on an average during that time of from 8 to 15 men, and received no other consideration than the promise of Adkins at that time to convey the lands to the plaintiffs. It is said in the complaint that:

"The said James Adkins has always during said time treated the said property as the property of these plaintiffs, and plaintiffs have lived upon, improved, fenced, and generally cared for said lands."

They say that Adkins often had promised that he would have papers prepared in fulfillment of the alleged agreement, but, if they ever existed, they have not been found or have been destroyed, and he died holding the legal title in his name. Their prayer is to the effect that the administrator and the mother of the deceased, who is his only heir, be declared to hold the land in trust for the use and benefit of the plaintiffs, and for further relief.

The making of the contract is denied by the answer. It is averred in effect that, instead of Adkins' living with the plaintiffs, they lived with him and were paid by him for all their services besides having the use of the property and their sustenance, derived in large part from material produced on the premises. This in turn was denied by the reply. From a decree according to the prayer of the complaint the defendants appeal.

Earle C. Latourette, of Oregon City (C. D. & D. C. Latourette, of Oregon City, on the brief), for appellants.

C. T. Sievers, of Oregon City (Brownell & Sievers, of Oregon City, on the brief), for respondents.

BURNETT, J. (after stating the facts as above).

The facts appear to be that as early as 1898 Adkins was running a sawmill in Clackamas county and employed the plaintiff L. G. Riggs in the operation of the same. He afterwards engaged the plaintiff Nettie Riggs to cook for the mill hands at an agreed price of $20 per month, together with housing and board for herself and family, consisting of her husband and two children. They went upon the premises for that purpose and continued there for about a year, when, as the plaintiffs declare, the agreement in question was made orally. Without dispute, the husband continued to receive pay for his services in the mill. The wife says that this was sufficient for the maintenance of the family, outside of what they otherwise received from the decedent, in consequence of which she did not draw any of her wages, although she might have had them for the asking. After the alleged agreement was made, the decedent bought three other pieces of property, all of which are included in the description mentioned in the complaint. Among others, of those bought subsequently he took conveyance from the plaintiffs themselves of one of the tracts. The plaintiffs say there never was any change in the terms of the contract; yet they say he bought from them this land for which he never paid, but that they forgave him the debt, and claim this same land was to be theirs after his death.

Speaking of the contract, the wife testified that what they were to get was "the property where the mill sat, where we lived at that time." They were then living in a house near the mill already on the land when they went there, which is not to be mistaken for the one built later and hereinafter mentioned. She was unable to state how many acres were in the tract to be conveyed, and neither witness pretends to give any definite boundary of the property they were to have. The wife was uncertain about who were to be the grantees. On that point her testimony is to this tenor:

She said, "We were to get the place." Asked "Whom do you mean by 'we'?" she answered, "My husband, myself, and my family."

"Q. And your family? A. Yes, sir; he intended it for a home for us all. That is what he said.

"Q. Did he say 'family'? A. He said 'us all.' He said when he was through with it it was ours. It belonged to us.

"Q. 'Us'? A. No, sir; he said, 'This belongs to you folks.'

"Q. Did he mention any names when he said 'you folks'? A. No, sir; I suppose we would know enough to know what he meant when he was talking direct to us.

"Q. Did he mean you and your husband and the children? A. He meant it was for all of us; yes, sir.

"Q. What children have you? A. I have two.

"Q. They are

...