Underwood v. Wetzel

Oregon Supreme Court

Underwood v. Wetzel

21 P.2d 1119, 143 Or. 699, 1933 Ore. LEXIS 157

DecidedApril 18, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 21 P.2d 1119 (Underwood v. Wetzel) 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

Underwood v. Wetzel, 21 P.2d 1119, 143 Or. 699, 1933 Ore. LEXIS 157 (Or. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

BELT, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying the petition of J. J. Underwood, widower, to have set aside to him certain property claimed exempt as a homestead. The sole question presented is one of fact. An examination of the record clearly convinces us that the lower court was right in finding that the property at Rhododendron, near Mt. Hood — for which a homestead exemption is claimed — was not the actual abode and home of Underwood and his wife at the time of her death. Their real home was on Greenwood avenue in the city of Portland. The place at Rhododendron was used merely for vacation purposes and as a temporary abode. It would not be of interest to the profession generally to set forth the evidence upon which our conclusion is based.

The order dismissing the petition is affirmed.

Rand, C. J., did not participate in this decision.

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

BELT, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying the petition of J. J. Underwood, widower, to have set aside to him certain property claimed exempt as a homestead. The sole question presented is one of fact. An examination of the record clearly convinces us that the lower court was right in finding that the property at Rhododendron, near Mt. Hood — for which a homestead exemption is claimed — was not the actual abode and home of Underwood and his wife at the time of her death. Their real home was on Greenwood avenue in the city of Portland. The place at Rhododendron was used merely for vacation purposes and as a temporary abode. It would not be of interest to the profession generally to set forth the evidence upon which our conclusion is based.

The order dismissing the petition is affirmed.

Rand, C. J., did not participate in this decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 P.2d 1119, 143 Or. 699, 1933 Ore. LEXIS 157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/underwood-v-wetzel-or-1933.