| "{\"id\": \"2004147\", \"name\": \"ALBERT T. DAISLEY, Administrator, v. S. E. HAMBELTON et al.\", \"name_abbreviation\": \"Daisley v. Hambelton\", \"decision_date\": \"1929-12-17\", \"docket_number\": \"\", \"first_page\": \"507\", \"last_page\": \"508\", \"citations\": \"131 Or. 507\", \"volume\": \"131\", \"reporter\": \"Oregon Reports\", \"court\": \"Oregon Supreme Court\", \"jurisdiction\": \"Oregon\", \"last_updated\": \"2021-08-11T00:41:27.571074+00:00\", \"provenance\": \"CAP\", \"judges\": \"\", \"parties\": \"ALBERT T. DAISLEY, Administrator, v. S. E. HAMBELTON et al.\", \"head_matter\": \"Argued at Pendleton, October 29;\\naffirmed December 17, 1929;\\nrehearing denied January 7, 1930\\nALBERT T. DAISLEY, Administrator, v. S. E. HAMBELTON et al.\\n(282 Pac. 1086)\\nFor appellant there was a brief and oral argument by Mr. George W. Cherry.\\nFor respondent there was a brief and oral argument by Mr. J. A. Burleigh.\", \"word_count\": \"187\", \"char_count\": \"1077\", \"text\": \"ROSSMAN, J.\\nWe believe that the opening paragraph of the decision in Malagamba, v. McLean, 89 Or. 807 (173 P. 1175), is sufficient to determine this suit adversely to the plaintiff; we quote:\\n\\\"This suit is based upon the theory that the real property of an estate is not subject to execution upon a judgment against the heir, until after final distribution of the estate; but such a conclusion is clearly erroneous.\\\"\\nIf any further authorities are required to warrant an affirmance of the result below the following ought to suffice: Freeman on Executions (3ded.), \\u00a7183; 17 R. C. L., Levy and Seizure, \\u00a7 64, p. 164; 18 C. J., Descent and Distribution, \\u00a7 333; 23 C. J., Executions, \\u00a7 66. The decree of the lower court is affirmed.\\nAffirmed. Rehearing Denied.\"}" |