Case Name: In Re Estate of ELIZABETH GRIFFITH. MAGGIE WILSON, v. MONROE BOLICH, Executor
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1926-07-27
Citations: 119 Or. 87
Docket Number: 
Parties: In Re Estate of ELIZABETH GRIFFITH. MAGGIE WILSON, v. MONROE BOLICH, Executor.
Judges: Bean, Brown and Rand, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 119
Pages: 87–89

Head Matter:
Argued July 15,
affirmed July 27, 1926.
In Re Estate of ELIZABETH GRIFFITH. MAGGIE WILSON, v. MONROE BOLICH, Executor.
(248 Pac. 156.)
For. appellant there was a brief and oral argument by Mr. L. E. Schmitt.
For respondent there was a brief over the names of Mr. Irvin Goodman and Mr. James H. McMenamin, with an oral argument by Mr. Goodman.

Opinion:
McBRIDE, O. J.
The view we take of the facts in this case renders a consideration of the various legal propositions, discussed by counsel, superfluous. No bill was ever presented to the decedent in her lifetime, and the last item of service alleged was more than two 'years before her death. The evidence' of its validity rests almost wholly npon the testimony of claimant, although there are some slight corroborating circumstances. It is shown by other testimony that deceased was a woman, who usually had money on hand to pay her hills, and paid them promptly; that shortly before her death she stated that she owed nothing in the world except a grocery bill, which had not been presented at that time, and that claimant had stated in the presence of several persons that deceased "did not owe her a penny." While the testimony, as to these statements, came mostly from interested sources, none came from witnesses having a greater interest than the claimant.
"Claims of long standing when filed against an estate of a decedent should be scrutinized with care, and in such cases strong and convincing proof should be required before allowing the same." Branch v. Lambert, 103 Or. 423 (205 Pac. 995).
Such strong, convincing proof does not exist here. In fact, the evidence, taken as a.whole, shows rather a preponderance of evidence against the validity of the claim.
The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Bean, Brown and Rand, JJ., concur.