Prouty v. Burroughs

Oregon Supreme Court

Prouty v. Burroughs

164 P. 187, 83 Or. 660, 1917 Ore. LEXIS 64

DecidedApril 10, 1917

StatusPublished

This text of 164 P. 187 (Prouty v. Burroughs) 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

Prouty v. Burroughs, 164 P. 187, 83 Or. 660, 1917 Ore. LEXIS 64 (Or. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Burnett

delivered the opinion of the court.

1,2. The testimony shows that the money immediately invested in the property in controversy was all in the hands of the plaintiff; that he managed the transaction and the defendant knew nothing whatever about the contents of the deed until it was delivered to her and she had nothing to do with its preparation. As to the real source of the money and to whom it equitably belonged the parties are at total variance. There is utterly no testimony to support a charge of fraud. The plaintiff has failed in our judgment to produce a preponderance of evidence showing that any of the money really belonged to him if a full accounting was had, and consequently his case fails for w;ant of a greater weight of testimony than that produced by the defendant. Under these circumstances the suit should be dismissed without costs or disbursements to either party. It is so ordered. Suit Dismissed.

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

Mr. Justice Burnett

delivered the opinion of the court.

1,2. The testimony shows that the money immediately invested in the property in controversy was all in the hands of the plaintiff; that he managed the transaction and the defendant knew nothing whatever about the contents of the deed until it was delivered to her and she had nothing to do with its preparation. As to the real source of the money and to whom it equitably belonged the parties are at total variance. There is utterly no testimony to support a charge of fraud. The plaintiff has failed in our judgment to produce a preponderance of evidence showing that any of the money really belonged to him if a full accounting was had, and consequently his case fails for w;ant of a greater weight of testimony than that produced by the defendant. Under these circumstances the suit should be dismissed without costs or disbursements to either party. It is so ordered. Suit Dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 P. 187, 83 Or. 660, 1917 Ore. LEXIS 64, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prouty-v-burroughs-or-1917.