Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1911-05-29
OREGON SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
Published Courtesy Of F. A. Turner Reporter Of the
Supreme Court

Oliver V. SynhOrst, Union County.
Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Union County. Hon. H. ]. Bean,
judge. Argued on rehearing May 1,
1911, at Pendleton. Turner Oliver,
for appellant. c. A. Cochran, for
respondent. Burnett, ]. Affirmed
on rehearing.
The pleadings and the law of this
case were settled by the decision of
this court reported at As Ore. 292,
Sc Pac. 376, z L. r. A. IN. 81 243.
Much of the complaint had been
stricken out on motion in the circuit
court and the propriety of that ruling
was the only question considered
here on the first appeal. The effect
of our decision on that appeal was
TO reinstate the matter thus excluded
and allow the plaintiff to prove the
same, if she could, at a new trial in
the court below. The second hearing
in that court resulted in a decree
dismissing the suit and on the second
appeal in an opinion by Justice Nc
Bride, 100 Pac. 1852, the disposition
of the case by the circuit court was
affirmed. A rehearing in this court
having been granted, We have lis
tened to exhaustive arguments on
the facts and have carefully studied
the testimony reported in the record
and it remains to determine anew
whether the complaint Is substantial
ly proven.
BURNETT, ]. The premises of
the plaintiff are situated in block "a
of Chaplin's Addition to the City of
LaGrande, in Union County. Fourth
street in that addition runs north
and south and bounds the block on
the east. "O' street runs east and
west and bounds 1t on the north.
Lot 5 is at the northeast corner of
the block. Lot adjoins 1t on the
south and these two lots have a
frontage Of so feet on co. street
and all four OF the lots have depth
of 110 feet and as a body are bound
ed on the south by an alley running
east and west through the block,
Turner Oliver, The husband of plain
tiff, purchased lots 4, and from
Mrs. Teresa D. Remington and after
wards conveyed them to his wife, the
plaintiff, who purchased lot 3 direct
from another grantor. The husband
of plaintiff appears to have per-
formed as her agent all the doings
ascribed to her in the complaint and
was her principal witness at the
hearing in the court below. She
herself did not testify.
The complaint states "that the
plaintiff is and for several years last
past has been the owner in fee sim
rNIn 80 ~ A ~ A
of Chaplin's Addition to the City of
LaGrande, in Union County, State OF
Oregon, and of all land enclosed by
the fence which now incloses all OF
said lots and 6 and most of said
lots and and most of said lots 8
and A." 1t Is admitted that the
plaintiff Is the owner of the -four
lots mentioned The allegation i'm
plies that the plaintiff owns ground
in her inclosure besides the lots
Does the testimony prove her title tc
the additional ground?
The plaintiff attempts to establish
her allegation of title by the ora
testimony of Turner Oliver and his
grantor, Mrs. Remington. Objection
was made to this testimony because
the deeds or the records thereof were
the best evidence and, avoiding that
objection, counsel for plaintiff, al
the hearing, promised to produce the
deeds later, but they were not pro
duced and do not appear in the evi.
dence when the stronger and more
satisfactory evidence of the deeds ol
the record was within the power Of
the plaintiff, we are authorized un
der section 86S, L. o. L., sub. 7, tC
view the oral testimony with distrus
and to presume that the property
was conveyed TO plaintiff and hel
predecessors in title by numbers Of
the block and lots as designated OF
the recorded plat, rather than by
metes and bounds including more
than the area of the lots in question
as shown on the mop. Lots mus
have been sold with reference to thu
plat mentioned in the complaint elst
how could plaintiff have acquired
any title whatever to the lots undel
that description? Such plating o