Daisley v. Hambelton

Oregon Supreme Court

Daisley v. Hambelton

282 P. 1086, 131 Or. 507

Oregon Supreme Court·Decided January 7, 1930·Published

Opinion

ROSSMAN, J.

We believe that the opening paragraph of the decision in Malagamba, v. McLean, 89 Or. 807 (173 P. 1175), is sufficient to determine this suit adversely to the plaintiff; we quote:

“This suit is based upon the theory that the real property of an estate is not subject to execution upon a judgment against the heir, until after final distribution of the estate; but such a conclusion is clearly erroneous.”

If any further authorities are required to warrant an affirmance of the result below the following ought to suffice: Freeman on Executions (3ded.), §183; 17 R. C. L., Levy and Seizure, § 64, p. 164; 18 C. J., Descent and Distribution, § 333; 23 C. J., Executions, § 66. The decree of the lower court is affirmed.

Affirmed. Rehearing Denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ROSSMAN, J.

We believe that the opening paragraph of the decision in Malagamba, v. McLean, 89 Or. 807 (173 P. 1175), is sufficient to determine this suit adversely to the plaintiff; we quote:

“This suit is based upon the theory that the real property of an estate is not subject to execution upon a judgment against the heir, until after final distribution of the estate; but such a conclusion is clearly erroneous.”

If any further authorities are required to warrant an affirmance of the result below the following ought to suffice: Freeman on Executions (3ded.), §183; 17 R. C. L., Levy and Seizure, § 64, p. 164; 18 C. J., Descent and Distribution, § 333; 23 C. J., Executions, § 66. The decree of the lower court is affirmed.

Affirmed. Rehearing Denied.

Daisley v. Hambelton, 282 P. 1086, 131 Or. 507 (Or. 1930).

Pincite

282 P. 1086 (Daisley v. Hambelton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related