Title: Fitzgerald v. Juhlin
Citation: 194 Or. 40, 240 P.2d 1191
Docket Number: N/A
State: Oregon
Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court
Date: February 20, 1952

Affirmed February 20, 1952.
L.G. Sandblast, of Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Arthur C. Raven, of Portland.
*41 Mood W. Eckley, of Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was James H. Ganoe, of Portland.
Before BRAND, Chief Justice, and ROSSMAN, LUSK, LATOURETTE and WARNER, Justices.
AFFIRMED.
LATOURETTE, J.
This is an appeal by defendant from a stipulated decree. Plaintiff sued defendant on his first cause of action for money had and received by defendant for the benefit of plaintiff in the sum of $10,000. The second cause of action is based on the assignment by plaintiff to defendant of a certain contract for the sale of land on the promise of marriage. Plaintiff prayed for an accounting and for a decree declaring him to be the owner of the real property in question. At the trial defendant was called as an adverse witness. After the proceedings had ensued for a period of time, the transcript of evidence shows that the following occurred:
Thereafter plaintiff filed a motion for the entry of a decree in accordance with the stipulations of the parties made in open court. Accompanying this motion was an affidavit by Mr. Eckley, plaintiff's attorney, that the defendant failed and refused to execute a deed pursuant to stipulation, and that $50 had been paid over to the defendant's attorney in accordance with the stipulation; whereupon, on November 8, 1950, the court entered the following decree in accordance with the stipulation, the formal recitals being:
After the above decree was entered, defendant filed the following affidavit:
*44 Defendant's assignment of error follows:
1, 2. There is nothing in the record, nor has anything been pointed out to us, suggesting that defendant ever protested at the trial to the stipulation entered into between the parties. The decree recites that the parties not only appeared in person but by their attorneys and entered into the stipulation in open court, and, as the decree imports verity, in the absence of an appropriate and timely showing to the contrary, it must stand. Defendant contends that, since she later refused to execute a deed, this is evidence that she never entered into any stipulation. Such argument is puerile as women have no more right than men to change their minds when legal obligations are involved. If defendant had any grievance against her counsel's actions at the trial unknown to the court, she had a right under § 1-1007, OCLA, to ask to be relieved from the judgment.
There is nothing in the appeal. Affirmed.