Taylor v. Grant
| Decision Date | 23 February 1955 |
| Parties | Henry B. TAYLOR and Elizabeth A. Taylor, Respondents, v. Jasper GRANT, Harold F. Thornton and Portland Trust Bank, a corporation, Conservator of the Estates of Jasper Grant and Harold F. Thornton, Incompetents, Appellants. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Elton Watkins, Portland, for the petition.
Before TOOZE, Acting C. J., and ROSSMAN, LUSK, BRAND, LATOURETTE and PERRY, JJ.
Defendants have filed a petition with this court asking for a clarification of the conditions set forth in our original opinion, Taylor v. Grant, Or., 279 P.2d 479, 489, for the granting of affirmative relief to the plaintiffs. Those conditions are:
It is pointed out to us in the petition that as yet there has been no allowance of compensation to the Bank or to its present attorneys for services performed by them in the matter of the estate of Jasper Grant. The only allowances of compensation to either the Bank or its present attorneys were made in the estate of Harold F. Thornton, those being the fees discussed in our original opinion. The two conservatorship proceedings were entirely separate and independent of each other, although it is obvious that much of the service performed both by the Bank and its attorneys was common to both estates.
In condition No. 3 above it will be noted that we provided for payment to the Bank of the ordinary costs and expenses incurred by it in administering the conservatorship, if any remain unpaid. That applies to both conservatorship proceedings. This would include the costs and expenses, if any, of closing the estates in the probate court. It also would include the allowance of such reasonable sums in the Jasper Grant conservatorship as may...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
North Pac. Lumber Co. v. Oliver
...the conscious act of the party against whom it is invoked." (Citing Taylor v. Grant, 204 Or. 10, 279 P.2d 479, opinion clarified 204 Or. 10, 279 P.2d 1037, Reh. denied, 204 Or. 10, 281 P.2d The court stated that while the evidence suggested plaintiff's hardwood division manager bore primary......
-
Daniel N. Gordon, an Or. Prof'l Corp. v. Rosenblum
...unconscionable conduct constitutes "unclean hands." Taylor et ux. v. Grant et al. , 204 Or. 10, 26, 279 P.2d 479, clarified , 204 Or. 10, 35, 279 P.2d 1037, reh'g den. , 204 Or. 10, 36, 281 P.2d 704 (1955) (internal quotation marks omitted). In property disputes, "any form of unconscionable......
-
Ballinger v. Klamath Pacific Corp.
...good faith, not necessarily as a defense, but for the protection of public policy and the integrity of the court. Taylor et ux v. Grant et al., 204 Or. 10, 24, 279 P.2d 1037, 281 P.2d 704 (1955). In light of the language of the statute, it can hardly be said that the legislature did not int......
-
Rise v. Steckel
...for the protection of the integrity of the court.' " (Emphasis in original.) Taylor et ux v. Grant et al, 204 Or. 10, 24, 279 P.2d 479, 279 P.2d 1037, 281 P.2d 704 (1955) (quoting 30 C.J.S. 475, Equity, § 93 " ' * * * While a court of equity endeavors to promote and enforce justice, good fa......