Willis v. Smith

Oregon Supreme Court

Willis v. Smith

42 P. 990, 28 Or. 581, 1895 Ore. LEXIS 131

DecidedDecember 23, 1895

StatusPublished

This text of 42 P. 990 (Willis v. Smith) 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. Smith, 42 P. 990, 28 Or. 581, 1895 Ore. LEXIS 131 (Or. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice Bean.

This is a proceeding by garnishment. The pleadings are identical with those in the case of P. L«, Willis against, the same defendants, 28 Or. 265, except as to the date of the garnishment, and the date and [582]*582amount of plaintiff’s judgment against Holmes. It appears from the record that after a jury had been impanelled to try the cause and both parties had declined to give any evidence, the defendant moved for a nonsuit, and plaintiff for a judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiff’s motion was overruled, and the motion for nonsuit allowed, on the theory that the burden of proof was on the plaintiff. For the reasons given in the opinion just filed in the P. L. Willis case, 28 Or. 265, we think the motion for judgment on the pleadings was properly overruled, but the court erred in holding that the burden of proof was on the plaintiff and in granting a nonsuit. Reversed.

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

Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice Bean.

This is a proceeding by garnishment. The pleadings are identical with those in the case of P. L«, Willis against, the same defendants, 28 Or. 265, except as to the date of the garnishment, and the date and [582]*582amount of plaintiff’s judgment against Holmes. It appears from the record that after a jury had been impanelled to try the cause and both parties had declined to give any evidence, the defendant moved for a nonsuit, and plaintiff for a judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiff’s motion was overruled, and the motion for nonsuit allowed, on the theory that the burden of proof was on the plaintiff. For the reasons given in the opinion just filed in the P. L. Willis case, 28 Or. 265, we think the motion for judgment on the pleadings was properly overruled, but the court erred in holding that the burden of proof was on the plaintiff and in granting a nonsuit. Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 P. 990, 28 Or. 581, 1895 Ore. LEXIS 131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willis-v-smith-or-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack