Case Name: CLOUGH v. DAWSON
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1913-07-08
Citations: 69 Or. 52
Docket Number: 
Parties: CLOUGH v. DAWSON.
Judges: Mr. Chief Justice McBride, Me. Justice Eakin and Mr. Justice McNart concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 69
Pages: 52–61

Head Matter:
Motion to dismiss appeal, denied July 8, 1913.
On the merits, argued January 19, decided January 27, 1914.
CLOUGH v. DAWSON.
(133 Pac. 345; 138 Pac. 233.)
Appeal and Error—Record—Jurisdiction of Supreme Court.
1. A record including certified copies of the notice of appeal, the undertaking therefor, and the decree confers jurisdiction of the cause upon this eourt.
Appeal and Error — Motion for Dismissal — Sufficiency of Testimony Included in Transcript.
2. Whether or not sufficient testimony has been included in the transcript to authorize a review of the decree, cannot be determined upon a motion to dismiss the appeal.
Fraud — Evidence—Weight and Sufficiency.
3. Fraud is a question of fact, and is provable by circumstantial evidence or by inference; direct and positive proof not being essential.
[As to what is sufficient proof of fraud, see note in 65 Am. Dee. 157.]
Principal and Agent — Evidence—Weight and Sufficiency.
4. In a suit to cancel an exchange of real estate, evidence held to show that one of the defendants, who elaims to have been simply a witness to the transaction, was in faet the principal, and another, who made the false representations to plaintiffs, was his agent.
Trusts — Evidence—Burden of Proof.
5. Every fiduciary relation implies superiority of one party over the other, and equity presumes against the validity of every transaction in which the superior party obtains a benefit, and places on him the burden of showing affirmative compliance with equitable requirements.
[As to liability of principal for fraud of agent dependent on whether fraud is committed for benefit of principal, see note in Ann. Cas. 1913B, 829.]
Trusts — Constructive Trusts — Property Obtained by Fraud.
6. Where one obtained land from plaintiffs by fraud, a defendant who negotiated with third parties an exchange of the land for other land of which he afterward received a deed was not a bona fide purchaser, and a constructive trust was properly impressed on the land so obtained in favor of plaintiffs.
Principal and Agent — Liability for Acts of Agent — Fraud.
7. A principal is chargeable with fraud practiced by the agent, whether she knew of it or not, since she cannot ratify and obtain the benefit of the deal without assuming its burdens.
On Motion to Dismiss.
From Multnomah: John P. Kavanaugh, Judge.
This is a suit by Charles Clough and Addie Clough, his wife, against V. J. Dawson and Eose Dawson, his wife, Hugh McGovern and Lenora D. Miller. There was a decree for plaintiffs and defendants appeal. Eespondents file motion to dismiss appeal.
Motion Denied.
Statement by Mr. Justice Bean.
This is a suit to rescind a contract for the exchange of real estate on the ground of fraud, and for a conveyance to plaintiffs of a portion of that realty and certain other land received by defendants in exchange for the remainder of plaintiffs’ properties. The Circuit Court rendered a decree in favor of plaintiffs, from which defendants Hugh McGovern and Lenora D. Miller appeal.
Plaintiffs allege that on or about the 1st of February, 1911, the defendants conspired, confederated and associated themselves together to cheat, wrong and defraud plaintiffs, and to -secure from them the real estate described in the complaint. Defendants V. J. Dawson and Eose Dawson, his wife, made default, and have left the country. Defendants McGovern and Lenora D. Miller answered, denying the material allegations of the complaint.
Mr. R. K. Sargent, Mr. Oliver M. Rickey and Mr. Frank Swope, for the motion.
Mr. Joseph E. and Gilbert L. Hedges, contra.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Moore
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a motion to dismiss an appeal based on the ground that the transcript does not contain all the testimony given at the trial.
The record before us includes certified copies of the notice of appeal, the undertaking therefor, and the decree that was given, thereby -conferring upon this court jurisdiction of the cause. "Whether or not sufficient testimony has been included in the transcript to authorize a review of the decree cannot be determined in this primary proceeding.
The motion to dismiss appeal is therefore denied.
Motion Denied.