Penland v. Despain

Oregon Supreme Court

Penland v. Despain

236 P. 1055, 115 Or. 177, 1925 Ore. LEXIS 57

DecidedMay 4, 1925

StatusPublished

This text of 236 P. 1055 (Penland v. Despain) 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

Penland v. Despain, 236 P. 1055, 115 Or. 177, 1925 Ore. LEXIS 57 (Or. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

BELT, J.

To set forth the pleadings and facts out of which this controversy arose would needlessly encumber the reports. Tersely stated, it is a suit in the nature of a creditor’s bill to subject a certain Maxwell automobile to payment of defendant Grover Despain’s indebtedness incurred while operating a grocery store at Pendleton, Oregon. Plaintiff asserts that the automobile was purchased in the name of Despain’s wife for the purpose of cheating and defrauding various creditors. Despain and his wife claim that it was bought in good faith and from her separate funds, and not with the intention as *178 alleged by plaintiff. It will thus be seen that the issue before us is purely a question of fact. "We have carefully considered the well-prepared briefs of counsel and the transcript of evidence, and are convinced, as was the trial court, that the transaction in question is free from fraud. We think it is clearly established by the preponderance of the evidence that defendant Edna Despain purchased the automobile in good faith and not from funds belonging to her husband. It is therefore not subject to his debts. The decree of the Circuit Court dismissing this suit is affirmed, and defendants are awarded their costs and disbursements herein. Affirmed.

Bean and Brown, JJ., took no part in the consideration of this case.

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

BELT, J.

To set forth the pleadings and facts out of which this controversy arose would needlessly encumber the reports. Tersely stated, it is a suit in the nature of a creditor’s bill to subject a certain Maxwell automobile to payment of defendant Grover Despain’s indebtedness incurred while operating a grocery store at Pendleton, Oregon. Plaintiff asserts that the automobile was purchased in the name of Despain’s wife for the purpose of cheating and defrauding various creditors. Despain and his wife claim that it was bought in good faith and from her separate funds, and not with the intention as *178 alleged by plaintiff. It will thus be seen that the issue before us is purely a question of fact. "We have carefully considered the well-prepared briefs of counsel and the transcript of evidence, and are convinced, as was the trial court, that the transaction in question is free from fraud. We think it is clearly established by the preponderance of the evidence that defendant Edna Despain purchased the automobile in good faith and not from funds belonging to her husband. It is therefore not subject to his debts. The decree of the Circuit Court dismissing this suit is affirmed, and defendants are awarded their costs and disbursements herein. Affirmed.

Bean and Brown, JJ., took no part in the consideration of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 P. 1055, 115 Or. 177, 1925 Ore. LEXIS 57, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/penland-v-despain-or-1925.