Willis v. Holmes

Oregon Supreme Court

Willis v. Holmes

42 P. 988, 28 Or. 583, 1895 Ore. LEXIS 133

DecidedDecember 23, 1895

StatusPublished

This text of 42 P. 988 (Willis v. Holmes) 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

Willis v. Holmes, 42 P. 988, 28 Or. 583, 1895 Ore. LEXIS 133 (Or. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice Bean.

In our opinion the testimony was manifestly insufficient to warrant a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The most that can be claimed for it is that about six months before the death of plaintiff’s intestate he received five thousand five hundred dollars for property sold to one Smith, but what disposition he made of it does not appear. At that time he lived alone on a farm some miles from Roseburg, but soon after was taken sick, removed to Smith’s house, and thence to Roseburg, where he died in February, eighteen hundred and ninety-four; that during the last two months of his life he was taken care of principally by the [585]*585defendant, who is his nephew, and the only relative in the state; that during this time he made different statements to the defendant about his money and property, saying that he had been robbed, and that if anything happened to look behind a certain log. A few days before his death, among other rambling and incoherent statements he said, “Floyd,” meaning the defendant, “over behind that log you will find something.” The evidence further shows that about three weeks before his uncle’s death the defendant, in conversation with the plaintiff about his uncle’s financial affairs, said he believed that Smith had paid for the property purchased by him, and that his uncle had the money then, for he told him where to look for it after his death, and that he also believed his uncle had the Yelzain note, and that the Kirkendall note had not been paid, although the mortgage given to secure it had been satisfied of record. The evidence also shows that defendant made no search for money or property after his uncle’s death, and, indeed, there is no testimony that the deceased had any money at the time of his death, or during the time the defendant was caring for him, and there is not a scintilla of evidence in the record to show that defendant received any money or property belonging to his uncle or his estate, or ever saw or knew that he had any. And, furthermore, he was put on the stand by plaintiff, and testified in most positive and unequivocal terms to the contrary. Under these circumstances and this character of testimony the court very properly allowed the motion for a nonsuit. Affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice Bean.

In our opinion the testimony was manifestly insufficient to warrant a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The most that can be claimed for it is that about six months before the death of plaintiff’s intestate he received five thousand five hundred dollars for property sold to one Smith, but what disposition he made of it does not appear. At that time he lived alone on a farm some miles from Roseburg, but soon after was taken sick, removed to Smith’s house, and thence to Roseburg, where he died in February, eighteen hundred and ninety-four; that during the last two months of his life he was taken care of principally by the [585]*585defendant, who is his nephew, and the only relative in the state; that during this time he made different statements to the defendant about his money and property, saying that he had been robbed, and that if anything happened to look behind a certain log. A few days before his death, among other rambling and incoherent statements he said, “Floyd,” meaning the defendant, “over behind that log you will find something.” The evidence further shows that about three weeks before his uncle’s death the defendant, in conversation with the plaintiff about his uncle’s financial affairs, said he believed that Smith had paid for the property purchased by him, and that his uncle had the money then, for he told him where to look for it after his death, and that he also believed his uncle had the Yelzain note, and that the Kirkendall note had not been paid, although the mortgage given to secure it had been satisfied of record. The evidence also shows that defendant made no search for money or property after his uncle’s death, and, indeed, there is no testimony that the deceased had any money at the time of his death, or during the time the defendant was caring for him, and there is not a scintilla of evidence in the record to show that defendant received any money or property belonging to his uncle or his estate, or ever saw or knew that he had any. And, furthermore, he was put on the stand by plaintiff, and testified in most positive and unequivocal terms to the contrary. Under these circumstances and this character of testimony the court very properly allowed the motion for a nonsuit. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 P. 988, 28 Or. 583, 1895 Ore. LEXIS 133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willis-v-holmes-or-1895.