Yates v. Cockerham

67 P.2d 269, 156 Or. 245, 1937 Ore. LEXIS 66
CourtOregon Supreme Court
DecidedApril 1, 1937
StatusPublished

This text of 67 P.2d 269 (Yates v. Cockerham) 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
Yates v. Cockerham, 67 P.2d 269, 156 Or. 245, 1937 Ore. LEXIS 66 (Or. 1937).

Opinion

RAND, J.

On June 21, 1935, the plaintiff obtained judgment against J. C. Cockerham.in the circuit court for Benton county and caused a writ of execution to be issued thereon. The execution was returned nulla bona. Plaintiff thereupon brought this suit in the nature of a creditor’s bill, seeking to reach certain moneys alleged to be the property of Cockerham and to have them applied in satisfaction of the judgment. Shortly after the commencement of the suit, Cockerham died and his widow, Esther Cockerham, as executrix under his will, was substituted in his place as a defendant in this suit.

*247 The moneys which the plaintiff seeks to have applied in satisfaction of his judgment are certain moneys alleged to have been due and payable by the New G-rand Ronde Lumber Company, hereinafter referred to as the lumber company, to Cockerham’s estate under a contract for the sale of timber, and also certain other moneys belonging to said estate alleged to have been wrongfully paid under said contract to the executor under the will of David Martiny, deceased.

The defendants Esther Cockerham, both individually and as executrix, Maude Eborall and Agnes Floyd, as assignee of Maude Eborall, filed a joint answer in the nature of a cross-complaint, setting up that the lumber company was also indebted to them in a large sum of money under the same contract for the sale of said timber and praying for a decree requiring payment thereof to them by said company. The cause proceeded to trial and a decree was entered, dismissing plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice and also dismissing the cross-complaint with prejudice and awarding to the lumber company and to the executor under the will of David Martiny a judgment for the costs and disbursements of the suit. From this decree, the plaintiff and the cross-complainants have each appealed.

The transactions out of which these controversies arose are as follows:

On October 30, 1925, a joint contract was entered into by J. C. Cockerham, Esther Cockerham, Maude Eborall, David Martiny, and W. E. Furnish, as executor under the will of W. J. Furnish, deceased, as vendors, and C. L. Jensen, J. C. Jensen, J. J. Kostick, Ambrose Kostick, Alvin Kostick, Ralph Kostick and Pauline Kostick, as vendees, in and by the terms of which the vendors contracted to sell and the vendees *248 to purchase the merchantable timber then standing on some 880 acres of certain designated lands situated in Polk county, Oregon.

Subsequent to the making of this contract and before any of the timber had been cut or removed from the lands, the vendees assigned the contract and their rights and interests thereunder to said lumber company, and said lumber company has cut and removed all of said merchantable timber from said lands and claims to have paid to the vendors all sums or amounts payable under the contract.

At and prior to the time the contract was entered into, the lands covered by the contract were not jointly held by the vendors but were by them owned in severalty, and the vendors knew that, in order to market this timber, it should first be manufactured into lumber and that, to justify the expenditure of sufficient moneys to erect a sawmill, a considerable body of timber must first be acquired by the owners of the mill. For that reason, the several tracts of land separately owned by the vendors were pooled and a joint contract was entered into by them the same as if the lands had been held in joint ownership, and there was no provision contained in the contract as to the amount either or any of the vendors were to receive for the particular timber cut and removed from their individual lands. The contract merely provided that all the merchantable timber should be cut and removed as if held in one ownership and that the full consideration to be paid therefor should be deposited by the vendees in certain designated banks to the credit of the vendors jointly and be distributed to them by said banks in accordance with their directions.

Subsequently and on May 23, 1927, the vendors stipulated in a writing signed by all of them that all *249 proceeds from the sale of the timber should be distributed to them by the bank in which they were deposited in the following proportions: to Maude Eborall, 18.2331337 per cent; to David Martiny, 26.2243772 per cent, and to J. C. Cockerham, 55.5424991 per cent.

The contract for the sale of the timber states the consideration which the vendees were to pay for the timber and the manner of payment in these words:

“That the vendors for and in consideration of One Hundred Sixty-five Thousand Eight Hundred and Nineteen Dollars, gold coin of the United States of America, to be paid to them by the purchasers in manner and form herein after set forth and the further consideration of the covenants and agreements, hereinafter stated, to be observed and performed by the purchasers, and vendors agree to sell and convey to the purchasers, and the purchasers agree to buy all the merchantable timber on the following legally described lands; all of the said lands and timber being situated in the County of Polk, of the State of Oregon, more particularly described as follows, to-wit: * * *

“One purpose of the purchasers in buying said timber is to cut, manufacture, sell and remove the timber from the land herein described. The purchasers covenant and agree to pay the vendors for the said timber the total price of One Hundred sixty-five thousand eight hundred and nineteen Dollars, gold coin of the United States of America, Five thousand dollars, ($5,000.00) of which is paid at the execution and delivery of this contract and the receipt thereof is hereby acknowledged and the remainder the purchasers agree to pay in installments of not less than $3.50 per thousand feet, board measure, payable as shipped, settlement to be made on or before the 10th day of each calendar month for all the lumber marketed in the preceding calendar month until the whole sum of One Hundred sixty-five thousand eight hundred and nineteen dollars, is paid. It is understood that the marketing is complete when the lumber is delivered to the purchasers on the prem *250 ises, or if shipped by rail, truck or otherwise, then, the market is complete when the bill of lading is issued therefor by the carrier.

“The purchasers shall furnish to the vendors on or before the 10th day of each calendar month a statement or statements for all lumber sold and money received for any lumber cut and sold by them in the preceding calendar month from the vendors timber, including all lumber sold locally or from the yard, or yards and hauled or carried away by the buyer thereof. Vendors shall give the purchasers credit on the gross amount for all money received therefrom.

“The purchase price of this timber as set forth in this contract and agreement, is known to all parties concerned to be $3.00 per thousand feet and the $.50 per thousand feet additional as herein provided, shall be applied on the full purchase price, known as the principal, and is to be paid at the same time the $3.00 payment, as herein provided for in the above paragraph in this contract.

“The purchasers agree to pay the entire purchase price of-thereon on or before the 30th day of October, 1935 * * *.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
67 P.2d 269, 156 Or. 245, 1937 Ore. LEXIS 66, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yates-v-cockerham-or-1937.