Thompson v. Marshall
Decision Date | 19 October 1891 |
Citation | 27 P. 957,21 Or. 171 |
Parties | THOMPSON v. MARSHALL. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Multnomah county; L.B. STEARNS, Judge.
Action by R.H. Thompson against J.P. Marshall. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.
STATEMENT BY THE COURT. On the 5th day of April, 1890, the Portland Cable Railway Company executed and delivered to the appellant the following writing: [ . This deed was duly acknowledged.
The complaint alleges that the object and purpose of the execution and delivery of said deed to Marshall was to secure the payment of an indebtedness of said railway company to the Ainsworth National Bank of Portland, Or., under a secret trust that said Marshall should sell and convey said lands at either public or private sale, and out of the proceeds thereof should pay said bank the amount of said indebtedness, rendering the overplus, if any, to said railway company or its assigns. The complaint further alleges that thereafter, and on the 27th day of January, 1891, said railway company was indebted to divers persons, including the respondent, and in various sums of money. That on said day said railway company executed and delivered to said Marshall another conveyance of said real property described in said conveyance dated April 5, 1890, and also by said deed, dated January 27, 1891, conveyed other real property to said Marshall. The following is a copy of said conveyance, dated January 27, 1891, (omitting the acknowledgment, which is in due form,) to-wit: [ This deed was also duly acknowledged.
It is alleged in the complaint that on the 18th day of April, 1891 the board of directors of said railway company duly passed a resolution directing and assenting that said Marshall, as trustee, should sell certain specified properties described in each of said deeds, and that said resolution directed and assented that said sale should be made at public auction at a place in the city of Portland to be designated by said trustee, and that certain prescribed notice should be given for a specified time, and the property be sold on terms named in said resolution. The complaint further shows that plaintiff is one of the creditors of said cable railway company whose debt was secured by the deed dated January 27, 1891, and that the defendant was about to sell all of said property under said secret trust relating to said deed of April 5, 1890, at the same time he would sell under the deed of January 27, 1891, under the direction and assent of the board of directors of said cable railway company, and make certain disposition of the proceeds of said sale as directed by the said board of directors, and will not foreclose the same by proper proceedings in court. The defendant demurred to the complaint, which was overruled, and, declining to further plead, a final decree was entered enjoining said sale, from which decree this...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Adams v. Colonial & United States Mortg. Co.
... ... 420, 28 L. Ed., 415; Sellwood v ... Gray, 11 Or. 534, 5 P. 196; Watson v. Dundee ... Mortgage Co., 12 Or. 474, 8 P. 548; Thompson v ... Marshall, 21 Or. 171, 27 P. 957; Adair v ... Adair, 22 Or. 115, 29 P. 193. Notwithstanding this, it ... has been held, both by the ... ...
-
Investors Syndicate v. Smith
...Baxter, 4 Or. 105, 111; Roberts v. Sutherlin, 4 Or. 219, 223; Sellwood v. Gray & De Lashmutt, 11 Or. 534, 537, 5 P. 196; Thompson v. Marshall, 21 Or. 171, 176, 27 P. 957; Adair v. Adair, 22 Or. 115, 131, 29 P. 193; Marx v. La Rocque, 27 Or. 45, 47, 39 P. 401; Security Savings & Trust Compan......
-
Wylly-gabbett Co. v. Williams
...of possession'--this provision in the mortgage is nugatory, but does not vitiate the mortgage, and should be disregarded. Thompson v. Marshall, 21 Or. 171, 27 P. 957. mortgage contains a provision authorizing the mortgagor 'at any time before default, without the consent of the trustee, to ......
-
Sanders v. Hall
...2 Cal. Unrep. 778, 14 P. 564, 566; Fiske v. Mayhew, 90 Neb. 196, 133 N. W. 195, 196, 197, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 1043; Thompson v. Marshall, 21 Or. 171, 27 P. 957, 959, 960; Central Trust Co. of N. Y. v. Burton, 74 Wis. 329, 43 N. W. 141, 142, 143; Shillaber v. Robinson, 97 U. S. 68, 77, 24 L. Ed......