Taylor v. Grant
| Decision Date | 06 April 1955 |
| Citation | 204 Or. 10,281 P.2d 704 |
| 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 |
Wilber Henderson, Portland, for the petition.
Elton Watkins, Leroy L. Lomax, and John K. Crowe, Portland, for appellants.
Before TOOZE, Acting C. J., and ROSSMAN, LUSK, BRAND, LATOURETTE and PERRY, JJ.
The plaintiffs have filed a petition for rehearing directed solely to that portion of our original opinion which imposed conditions upon the allowance of equitable relief to them. Taylor v. Grant, Or., 279 P.2d 479, 489. We allowed the petition of defendants for a clarification of these conditions, and did clarify them. Taylor v. Grant, Or., 279 P.2d 1037.
Plaintiffs complain that the court did not consider their contentions submitted in writing when the petition for clarification was pending respecting the conditions imposed by us in our original opinion. In that supposition, plaintiffs are mistaken. We did consider them, but deemed it unnecessary to mention them in our opinion of clarification.
Plaintiffs then maintained, and in their petition for rehearing insist, that there is no factual basis in the record of this case upon which to base the subject matter of the conditions imposed. They argue that every case must be decided upon the record in that particular case, and that the court is without authority to go outside the record and base its decision upon evidence aliunde. That rule is elementary as it applies to the merits of a controversy. We did not violate the rule in this litigation.
It is apparent that plaintiffs overlook the real basis and purpose of the conditions imposed. On the merits, we decided that plaintiffs did not come into court with clean hands. That conclusion was based strictly upon the record before us in this case. We also decided from the record that plaintiffs had not in their pleadings, or at any other time, offered to do equity. Had we stopped there, and under well-recognized principles of equity jurisprudence, we would have been compelled to close the doors of the court to plaintiffs, leaving the parties exactly where we found them.
However, despite plaintiffs' wrongdoing and unclean hands, we were of the opinion that under all the facts and circumstances of this case it would be unjust to further penalize plaintiffs for their fraud by depriving them entirely of the remaining funds. This being an equitable proceeding, and the arms...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bridgmon v. Walker
...are not concurrent, but are inconsistent. Amort v. Tupper, 204 Or. 279, 282 P.2d 660; Taylor v. Grant, 204 Or. 10, 279 P.2d 479, 1037, 281 P.2d 704; Widmer v. Leffelman, 187 Or. 476, 212 P.2d 737, 196 Or. 401, 249 P.2d 476; Baker v. Casey, 166 Or. 433, 112 P.2d 1031; Belanger v. Howard, 166......
-
North Pac. Lumber Co. v. Oliver
...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 704.) The court stated that while the evidence suggested plaintiff's hardwood division manager bore primary responsibility for the misconduc......
-
Daniel N. Gordon, an Or. Prof'l Corp. v. Rosenblum
...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 conduct, artifice, concealment, or question......
-
West Los Angeles Institute for Cancer Research v. Mayer
...circumstances and a balancing of all of the factors deemed to be relevant. Taylor v. Grant, 204 Or. 10, 279 P.2d 479, 486-488 and 281 P.2d 704, 705 (1955); Fadeley, The Clean Hands Doctrine In Oregon, 37 Ore.L.Rev. 160, 186-187 (1958). See generally, Johnson v. Yellow Cab Co., 321 U.S. 383,......