Case ID: or-app_55/html/0261-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Argued and submitted October 21,
    affirmed December 21, 1981
    reconsideration denied January 28,
    petition for review denied March 2,1982 (292 Or 589)
    GATES et al, Respondents, v. HORNING, Appellant,
    
    (No. 77-7-31, CA 19904)
    637 P2d 940
    James R. Cartwright, Portland, argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellant.
    Thomas K. Wolf, Tualatin, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondents.
    Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Thornton and Van Hoomissen, Judges.
    PER CURIAM.
   PER CURIAM.

The issue presented in this appeal is the meaning of the term “transfer” in a confession of judgment executed by defendant and his late wife.

Defendant argues that the deed to his new wife did not constitute a “transfer.” We disagree.

W.T. Rawleigh Co. v. McCoy, 96 Or 474, 190 P 311 (1920); Hammond v. Oregon etc. R.R. Co., 117 Or 244, 243 P 767, cert den 273 US 707.

Affirmed.