Title & Trust Co. v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
Citation | 138 Or. 467,1 P.2d 1100 |
Parties | TITLE & TRUST CO. v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO. |
Decision Date | 28 July 1931 |
Court | Supreme Court of Oregon |
Department 1.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County; Louis P. Hewitt, Judge.
Action by Title & Trust Company, as trustee for Hattie E. Miller and another, against the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company. From the judgment, defendant appeals, and plaintiff cross-appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
On the 17th day of December, 1914, E. Henry Wemme died testate in Multnomah county, Or., owning 98 of the 100 shares of corporate stock of the E. Henry Wemme Company, a corporation. By his will, Mr. Wemme gave this corporate stock to various people. He also provided, among other things, for the payment to Hattie E. Miller and Mamie Karlan of $35 per month each during their respective lives thus: "Fifth Notwithstanding the devise hereinbefore made of the capital stock of said The E. Henry Wemme Company, it is my will and I hereby direct that before the payment of any dividends on any of the capital stock of said The E. Henry Wemme Company there be first paid from the rents, issues and profits collected and owned by said corporation, the following amounts to the following persons respectively: *** to Hattie E. Miller the sum of $35.00 each month during her natural life, *** to Mamie Karlan, the sum of $35.00 each month during her natural life."
By an appropriate provision in his will, Mr. Wemme also constituted the E. Henry Wemme Company residuary legatee and devisee of his entire estate. His estate was probated, and on the 2d day of August, 1919, the executor thereof was discharged.
On the 7th day of May, 1927, said Hattie E. Miller and Mamie Karlan instituted a suit in the circuit court of Multnomah county to enforce the payment by said corporation of said bequests to them, to enjoin the disposition or transfer of the corporate assets, to impress a lien as security for said bequests upon said corporate assets, and to set apart sufficient of said assets as a trust fund to be administered by a trustee to insure the future payments of said bequests.
Besides the said the E. Henry Wemme Company, the Overlook Land Company, a corporation, and the United States National Bank of Portland, were made parties defendant to said suit. When the suit was instituted, the E. Henry Wemme Company owned 41 shares of the corporate stock of the Overlook Land Company and had $3,000 on deposit with said bank. A temporary injunction was issued restraining said bank from paying out any money on deposit to the credit of said the E. Henry Wemme Company, enjoining and restraining the E. Henry Wemme Company from paying or distributing to its shareholders or officers any moneys or property, or selling or disposing of any of its property, and enjoining and restraining the Overlook Land Company from transferring any of its corporate stock owned by the E. Henry Wemme Company.
On July 19, 1927, the defendants in said suit filed an answer to plaintiff's complaint and a motion to dissolve said injunction. On the 29th day of July, 1927, the following order was made therein (omitting the title of the case and the signature of the judge):
Omitting the title of the cause, the bond mentioned in the above order is as follows:
On the 12th day of December, 1928, an order was made, which, omitting the title of the cause, is as follows:
The case at bar was instituted to recover for the alleged breach by the defendant herein of the terms of the undertaking above set out. In the circuit court, after trial thereof, a judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant herein in the sum of $10,000, and for the costs and disbursements in this action. From this judgment defendant appeals.
Chester A. Sheppard, of Portland (Sheppard, Phillips & Ralston and R. B. Nason, all of Portland, on the brief), for appellant.
Robert G. Smith, of Portland (Roscoe P. Hurst, of Portland, on the brief), for respondent.
KELLY, J. (after stating the facts as above).
It is urged that the written instrument set out in the foregoing statement of fact, being the instrument upon which this action is based, is insufficient to constitute a valid undertaking. Attention is called to the fact that no obligee is named. It is claimed that no penal sum is mentioned. It is also argued that no covenant is stated, and it is alleged that there was no consideration for its execution.
In accordance with the statutory rule, which prescribes that "for the proper construction of an instrument, the circumstances under which it was made, including the situation of the subject of the instrument, and of the parties to it, may also be shown, so that the judge be placed in the position of those whose language he is to interpret" (section 717, O. L., section 9-216, Oregon Code 1930),...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Spicer v. Benefit Ass'n of Ry. Employees
... ... validity has been many times recognized. Title & Trust ... Co. v. U.S. F. & G. [142 Or. 591] Co., ... This ... brings us to the contention advanced by the defendant that ... constitutional guaranty. It simply provided a remedy for ... the ... ...
-
Close-Smith v. Conley
...the same consideration as it would be accorded, if made a part of the original contract of insurance. Title & Trust Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 138 Or. 467, 1 P.2d 1100, 7 P.2d 805. The law of the forum is controlling. Horwitz v. New York Life Insurance Co., 80 F.2d 295 (9......
-
Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Lull
...the law. Hagey v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co., 1942, 169 Or. 132, 126 P.2d 836, 127 P.2d 346; Title & Trust Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 1932, 138 Or. 467, 1 P.2d 1100, 7 P.2d 805; 147 Or. 255, 32 P.2d 1035; W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. McCoy, 1920, 96 Or. 474, 190 P. 311; An......
-
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Yoder
... ... (Minn.) 133 N.W ... 80; Bank v. U. S. F. & G. Co., 266 F. 495; Bank ... v. Trust Co. v. Bickford (Vt.) 122 A. 582. Defendants ... are bound by the terms and conditions of their ... plaintiff's second cause of action. The record makes it ... unnecessary for us to consider plaintiff's first cause of ... The ... Platte County State Bank of ... ...