Case Name: ST. MARTIN v. HENDERSHOTT
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1915-09-21
Citations: 82 Or. 58
Docket Number: 
Parties: ST. MARTIN v. HENDERSHOTT.
Judges: Me. Justice Bean, Mr. Justice Benson and Mr. Justice McBride concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 82
Pages: 58–67

Head Matter:
Motion to dismiss appeal denied September 21, 1915.
Argued on the merits September 14, modified October 17, rehearing denied November 27, 1916.
ST. MARTIN v. HENDERSHOTT.
(151 Pac. 706; 160 Pac. 373.)
Appeal and Error — Record on Appeal — Transcript of Evidence.
1. An appeal will not be dismissed in an equity case, although the-transcript of the testimony is not sent up, sinee the question of the sufficiency of the complaint may nevertheless be considered.
Appeal and Error — Record on Appeal — Time of Filing.
2. Although an abstract on appeal was not filed within the time allowed by law, the appeal would not be dismissed where the appellant showed no disposition to delay the hearing.
Appeal and Error — Review—Matters Reviewable.
3. On motion to dismiss an appeal, the objection that the transcript and abstract do not intelligibly present any question to be •decided will not be considered.
ON THE MERITS.
Death — -Presumption of Death from Absence — Statute.
4. By Section 799, subdivision 26, L. O. L., there is a presumption that a person, no.t heard from by his acquaintances or any members of his family for more than seven years, is dead.
[As to presumption of death, see notes in 91 Am. Dec. 526; 92 Am. Dec. 704; 46 Am. Rep. 761; 104 Am. St. Rep. 198.]
Tenancy in Common — Adverse Possession — Sufficiency of Evidence.
5. In suit between cotenants, to set aside a decree and to partition real property, evidence held insufficient to substantiate defendants’ allegation of title by adverse possession with the degree of certainty required between tenants in common.
Tenancy in Common — Possession of Cotenant — Presumption.
6. Possession by one tenant in common is presumed to have been in the interest of all others.
Limitation of Actions — Statute of Limitations — Six-year Claim.
7. In an action between eotenants to set aside a decree affecting plaintiff, and to partition real property, where defendants claimed for half the taxes admitted to have been paid by them, the allowance, as an offset to plaintiff, of half the sum of $250 expended by her in securing patent for the land more than six years before, was error; the statute of limitations as to such claims having run before suit was instituted.
Partition — Improvements.
8. In suit between cotenants to partition real property, plaintiff, who made improvements on the land, building an addition to the house, which was burned, could derive no benefit therefrom.
Partition — Improvements.
9. In suit between eotenants to partition the land, no allowance will be made plaintiff for trivial improvements.
From Marion: William Galloway, Judge.
This is a suit by Margaret St. Martin against William M. Hendershott, Libbie E. Hendershott and Napoleon Legault, in which the plaintiff obtained a decree and defendants appeal. Plaintiff now moves to dismiss the appeal.
Motion Denied.
Mr. John Bayne and Messrs. Richards & Richards, for the motion.
Mr. Horace B. Nicholas, Mr. W. G. Nicholas and Mr. R. W. Nicholas, contra.
In Banc.
The question of presumption of death from seven years’ absence is discussed in notes in 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 809; 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 178; L. R. A. 1915B, 729. Reporter.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Eakin
delivered the opinion of the court.
The plaintiff moves to dismiss the appeal for the reasons: (1) That the record shows that this appeal is from a decree, and the testimony, depositions and other papers containing the evidence, etc., do not accompany the transcript; (2) that the defendants failed to file their abstract within 20 days from the filing of the transcript as required by the rules of this court; and (3) the transcript and abstract do not intelligibly present any question to be decided by the court.
The transcript in this case consists of certified copies of the decree, notice of appeal and undertaking. This is just such a transcript as is prescribed by Section 554, L. O. L., as amended by Laws of 1913, p. 618, and is sufficient to give the court jurisdiction; but in equity cases the transcript of the testimony must accompany the transcript. This question of dismissing an appeal for the reason that it was not accompanied by the testimony was before this court in Neal v. Roach, 61 Or. 513 (107 Pac. 475), and the court said:
"When an appeal from a decree in a suit in equity which is to be tried anew on the testimony, and no-transcript thereof has been sent up, the only question that can be considered is: Does the complaint state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of suit? Howe v. Patterson, 5 Or. 353; Wyatt v. Wyatt, 31 Or. 531 (49 Pac. 855); Morrison's Estate, 48 Or. 612 (87 Pac. 1043). The sufficiency of the complaint, though not now challenged, is never waived, arid may be objected to at the trial in this court, and, this being so, the motion to dismiss should be denied, and it is so ordered."
The defendants did not file their abstract within the 20 days allowed, but, as their action does not show any disposition to delay the hearing, we think they should be excused for the few days delay in its filing.
When the case comes up for hearing the third objection may have merit, but that cannot be considered on a motion to dismiss the appeal.
Motion Denied.