Case Title: Clyde Et Ux v. Walker Et Ux

Citation: 220 Or. 137, 348 P.2d 1104

Docket Number: 

State: oregon

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Date: 1960-02-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
Affirmed and remanded February 3, 1960.
*138 George L. Hibbard, Oregon City, argued the cause for appellant. On the briefs were Beattie, Hibbard, Jacobs & Caldwell, Oregon City, and Edgar L. Martin, Sandy.
John O. Sheldahl, Oregon City, argued the cause for respondents. On the brief were Sheldahl & Misko, Oregon City, and Walter E. Parent, Santa Barbara, California.
Before McALLISTER, Chief Justice, and ROSSMAN, PERRY and REDDING, Justices.
REMANDED.
PERRY, J.
This is a suit for a declaratory judgment to determine the rights of the parties in and to standing timber situated in Clackamas County, Oregon, arising *139 out of a deed of conveyance from the defendants Walker to the plaintiffs Clyde. The trial court found in favor of the defendants and the plaintiffs appeal.
The record discloses that on November 8, 1948, the defendants, as grantors, executed their deed conveying certain lands in Clackamas county to plaintiffs, as grantees, which deed contained this clause:
The record further discloses that the timber has not been removed.
The plaintiffs contend that by reason of the failure of defendants to remove the timber within a reasonable time defendants' rights therein have been forfeited. The defendants contend the clause in the deed is an exception and not a reservation, that the timber never passed to the grantees and, therefore, is unaffected by the passage of time. Defendants also contend, if affected by the passage of time, they were prevented from removing the timber by the conduct of the plaintiffs and equity and justice requires that they be granted a reasonable time after plaintiffs' adverse conduct ceases in which to remove the timber.
The distinction between a reservation and an exception has been described in Rall et ux. v. Purcell et ux., 131 Or 19, 21, 281 P 832, as follows:
With reference to the effect of a reservation or exception, as applied to timber, the divergence of views of the courts is summarized in 34 Am Jur 518, Logs and Timber § 41:
This court, speaking through Mr. Justice ROSSMAN, in Coquille M. & T. Co. v. Dollar Co., 132 Or 453, 466, 285 P 244, set forth the rule applicable in this jurisdiction as follows:
1. An examination of the disputed clause shows no intention of the grantors in "clear and definite" language to retain in perpetuity either the timber or the right of ingress and egress to remove the same. The result is, the instrument being silent as to the time of removal, the law allows the defendants a reasonable time for removal of the timber and if defendants fail to remove the timber in a reasonable time without lawful excuse their rights are terminated. Coquille M. & T. Co. v. Dollar Co., supra; see also annotations 15 ALR 93, 31 ALR 951, 71 ALR 157, 164 ALR 440.
2. The law recognizes that when the owner of the soil has wrongfully interfered with the right of a party to remove his timber equity will by decree grant a reasonable time in which to remove the timber after the interference has ceased. Schroeder et ux. v. Toedtmeier et al., 184 Or 561, 200 P2d 606; Stacey v. Stacey, 250 Ala 187, 33 So2d 898; National Bank of Newberry v. Livingston, 164 SC 2, 161 SE 769; Halla v. Rogers, 176 F 709, 100 CCA 263.
*143 Litigation which poses a threat to the right of a party to the title or right to remove the timber is recognized as interference. Schroeder v. Toedtmeier, supra; Roberson v. Little, 200 Ala 582, 76 So 940; Cooksey v. Hartzell, 120 Ark 313, 179 SW 506; Kimsey v. Posey, 148 Ky 54, 145 SW 1121; Jones v. Gibbs, (Tex) 130 SW2d 274; Bond et al. v. Brown et al., 2 F2d 797.
3, 4. The facts of this case disclose that shortly after the deed was executed plaintiffs became dissatisfied with the transaction and contacted Hugh M. Lindsay, an attorney, in Santa Barbara, California. He, in turn, contacted Mr. Walker, one of the defendants, advised him of the claims made by plaintiffs, and said a suit would be brought if a compromise could not be worked out. Suit was filed September 8, 1949, in the Superior Court of California, which sought, among other relief, to reform the deed relative to the timber in question. Several amended complaints were filed and a demurrer to the last amended complaint was sustained June 14, 1954. Plaintiffs were given ten days to plead further. Plaintiffs did not plead further, but no final judgment was entered.
Defendants submit the suit in the California court was pending when the present suit was brought, while plaintiffs contend that the California litigation had terminated and a reasonable time had elapsed in which to remove the timber before the present suit was commenced.
Plaintiffs' contention that the California litigation had terminated is based upon section 583 of the California Code of Civil Procedure which provides for mandatory dismissal of actions not brought to trial within five years after commencement.
*144 In Berri v. Superior Court, 43 Cal2d 856, 279 P2d 8, the Supreme Court of California clearly enunciates the rule that section 583 does not apply to the situation here presented so as to require a mandatory dismissal because of the lapse of five years. In that case, 43 Cal2d 856, 859, 279 P2d 8, 11, the court stated:
As held in Jackson v. Jackson, 71 Cal App2d 837, 163 P2d 780, the authority of an attorney to act for his client while he remains attorney of record extends to any steps of an action or proceeding, or motion for a new trial, or for the purpose of enforcing a judgment or setting it aside. Wells Fargo & Co. v. City of San Francisco, 25 Cal2d 37, 152 P2d 625, held the attorney of record has the exclusive right to appear in court for his client and to control court proceedings, so that neither the party himself (Anglo-Calif. Trust Co. v. Kelly, 95 Cal App 390, 272 P 1080) nor another attorney (Johnston v. City of San Fernando, 35 Cal App2d 244, 95 P2d 147; Drummond v. West, 212 Cal 766, 300 P 823) can be recognized by the court in the conduct or disposition of the case. Davis v. Rudolph, 80 Cal App2d 397, 181 P2d 765.
The record fails to disclose any act or acts by defendants' attorney which were inconsistent with the exercise of good judgment in the conduct of the California litigation. It is not for us to say he was remiss in failing to move for final judgment.
It clearly appears from the record in this case that had the plaintiffs prevailed in the California litigation the defendants would have been liable in double or treble damages had they removed this timber. We, therefore, affirm the decree of the trial court awarding the timber to the defendants with right of removal within a reasonable time.
The trial court did not determine what was a reasonable time, for a then sufficient reason. This should *146 now be done. The cause is remanded to the trial court for that court to determine upon the record, or upon such further proof as the parties may present, what is a reasonable time for the removal of the timber and for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Neither party shall recover costs in this court.