Case Name: BEALL v. BEALL
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1912-12-24
Citations: 67 Or. 33
Docket Number: 
Parties: BEALL v. BEALL.
Judges: Mr. Chief Justice McBride, Mr. Justice Bean and Mr. Justice McNary concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 67
Pages: 33–44

Head Matter:
On Motion to Dismiss, decided December 24, 1912.
On the Merits, argued September 17, decided September 30, 1913.
BEALL v. BEALL.
(128 Pac. 835: 135 Pac. 185.)
Appeal and Error—Service of Notice—Necessity.
1. Service of notice of appeal upon defendants, who had no interest in the subject matter of the litigation, and who did not authorize any appearance, is unnecessary, as they are not necessary parties to the appeal, and the appeal will not be dismissed for irregularities in such service.
Mortgages—Requisites—Evidence as to Character of Instrument— Weight and Sufficiency.
2. Evidence held to show that a deed absolute on its face from the vendor to a creditor of the purchaser was intended as and was a mortgage to secure payment of the purchaser’s debt, subject to redemption by the purchaser from the creditor or his heirs and representatives.
Vendor and Purchaser—Bona Fide Purchasers—Deed as Mortgage.
3. One purchasing property from the heirs of a person deceased, with knowledge that another claimed that a deed of the property to the deceased was intended as a mortgage, is put upon inquiry and charged with notice of whatever right the claimant may have to redeem.
Mortgages—Requisites—Evidence as to Character of Instrument— Weight and Sufficiency.
4. Evidence held to show that a deed executed to certain heirs of a deceased creditor of the grantor for property which had previously been deeded to such creditor as security for a debt of the grantor was intended to convey whatever interest the grantor had in the property rather than as security for the original debt.
Mortgages—Requisites—Evidence as to Character of Instrument— Burden of Proof.
5. The presumption is that a'deed is what it purports on its face to be, and the burden of showing that it was really intended as a mortgage rests upon him who asserts that to be a fact, which must be shown by clear and satisfactory evidence.
From Clackamas: James U. Campbell, Judge.
This is a suit by it. Edgar Beall against John W. Beall, Portland Railway Light and Power Company, a corporation, E. C. Ramsby, county recorder, Ella M. Hildebrand, Mary Frances Wolfe, Laura H. Hamner, Birdie J. Dudrow, Arthur L. Beall, Marvin E. Beall and Jasper M. Beall. From a decree in favor of plaintiff, the defendant, John W. Beall, appeals. The respondent files motion to dismiss the appeal.
Motion Denied.
Wilson S. Neal, for the Motion.
Mr. N. A. Peery and King & Saxton, contra.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Eakin.
This is a motion to dismiss the appeal, for the reason that service of the notice upon six of the defendants who answered in the case was accepted by J. E. Hedges, who appeared as their attorney in the answer. At the trial it was contended by the respondents that Hedges had no authority to appear for them, and therefore had no authority to accept service of the notice of appeal, and that, there being no service of the notice upon these defendants, the court has no jurisdiction of the appeal, and that it should be dismissed.
In October and November, 1910, defendants Arthur L. Beall, Mary Frances Wolfe, Laura H. Hamner, Birdie J. Dudrow, and Ella M. Hildebrand authorized Peery & Peery and J. E. Hedges to appear in the suit for them. It is a significant fact that in the authority so given it is stated: "It being understood that I claim no interest in the property involved in this suit, that defendant John W. Beall is the owner thereof, and that he will bear all expenses." On November 8 and 12, 1910, Arthur L. Beall and Birdie J. Dudrow gave to someone (it does not appear to whom) a qualifying statement as to the person who should appear for them, but made no mention therein of the fact that they had no interest in the property. No authority to appear for him is shown from Marvin E. Beall. Later, in May, 1911, these six defendants, recognizing the pendency of the suit, and that they were parties thereto, executed a formal appointment to Albert W. Sanson, of Philadelphia, as their attorney in law and in fact, to appear for and represent them in this suit; and on April 4, 1911, Sanson wrote a letter, addressed to Peery & Peery and J. E. Hedges, canceling and withdrawing any authority theretofore given them to appear for .these defendants. "Whether sent to Peery & Peery and Hedges, or not, does not appear, but it was filed in court November 3, 1911, at the commencement of the trial. This was the condition at the time of the trial. There is no pretense in any of these papers that these six defendants had any interest in the subject of the suit, at the time the answer was filed or afterward, or that they desired to appear in the case; and such a statement is made in their answer.
Therefore the six defendants'last above named are not necessary parties to the appeal, and it was not required that the notice of appeal should be served upon them; and the motion to dismiss the appeal is denied. Motion Denied.