Hugg v. Hugg

Oregon Supreme Court

Hugg v. Hugg

247 P. 1118, 118 Or. 396, 1926 Ore. LEXIS 119

DecidedMay 18, 1926

StatusPublished

This text of 247 P. 1118 (Hugg v. Hugg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hugg v. Hugg, 247 P. 1118, 118 Or. 396, 1926 Ore. LEXIS 119 (Or. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

*397 BELT, J.

After a consideration of the transcript of evidence we are at a loss to understand why this appeal has been perfected. At the conclusion of plaintiff’s case, defendant moved for a dismissal and the court stated it was inclined to grant the motion were it not for the cross-complaint. Whereupon counsel for appellant said, “We are willing to dismiss our cross-complaint.” However, he did not do so. Defendant was satisfied then with the result which followed and we think ought to be now. It will serve no good purpose to review the wholly unfounded charges made by defendant. Suffice it to say, we are in accord with the conclusion reached by the learned trial court who had the great -advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses. The moving cause of this suit is the settlement of property rights.

The decree of the lower court is affirmed and plaintiff is awarded costs and disbursements.

Affirmed.

Band, Bean and Brown, JJ., concur.

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

*397 BELT, J.

After a consideration of the transcript of evidence we are at a loss to understand why this appeal has been perfected. At the conclusion of plaintiff’s case, defendant moved for a dismissal and the court stated it was inclined to grant the motion were it not for the cross-complaint. Whereupon counsel for appellant said, “We are willing to dismiss our cross-complaint.” However, he did not do so. Defendant was satisfied then with the result which followed and we think ought to be now. It will serve no good purpose to review the wholly unfounded charges made by defendant. Suffice it to say, we are in accord with the conclusion reached by the learned trial court who had the great -advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses. The moving cause of this suit is the settlement of property rights.

The decree of the lower court is affirmed and plaintiff is awarded costs and disbursements.

Affirmed.

Band, Bean and Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 P. 1118, 118 Or. 396, 1926 Ore. LEXIS 119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hugg-v-hugg-or-1926.