Sykes v. Proebstel Land Co.

Oregon Supreme Court

Sykes v. Proebstel Land Co.

153 P. 538, 79 Or. 36, 1916 Ore. LEXIS 141

DecidedJanuary 11, 1916

StatusPublished

This text of 153 P. 538 (Sykes v. Proebstel Land Co.) 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

Sykes v. Proebstel Land Co., 153 P. 538, 79 Or. 36, 1916 Ore. LEXIS 141 (Or. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice McBride

delivered the opinion of the court.

The testimony in this cause is very voluminous, and no good purpose would be subserved by a detailed discussion of it, as it would be of no interest or profit to the public at large or to the profession, and would needlessly encumber the reports. We have carefully examined it, and are of opinion that the persons through whom plaintiffs claim were the true and only heirs of Jane Proebstel, and that those through whom defendant claims have no interest in the property. This question of fact being resolved in favor of plaintiffs, a discussion of the questions of law so ably presented by respective counsel becomes superfluous.

The decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Moore, Mr. Justice Bean and Mr. Justice Harris concur. Mr. Justice Eakin 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

Mr. Justice McBride

delivered the opinion of the court.

The testimony in this cause is very voluminous, and no good purpose would be subserved by a detailed discussion of it, as it would be of no interest or profit to the public at large or to the profession, and would needlessly encumber the reports. We have carefully examined it, and are of opinion that the persons through whom plaintiffs claim were the true and only heirs of Jane Proebstel, and that those through whom defendant claims have no interest in the property. This question of fact being resolved in favor of plaintiffs, a discussion of the questions of law so ably presented by respective counsel becomes superfluous.

The decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Moore, Mr. Justice Bean and Mr. Justice Harris concur. Mr. Justice Eakin took no part in the consideration of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 P. 538, 79 Or. 36, 1916 Ore. LEXIS 141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sykes-v-proebstel-land-co-or-1916.