# Jack v. HUNT ET UX.

> Oregon Supreme Court · December 9, 1953 · 200 Or. 263

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9590038

## Case

- **Full name:** JACK v. HUNT Et Ux.
- **Court:** Oregon Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 9, 1953
- **Citations:** 200 Or. 263; 265 P.2d 251; 264 P.2d 461; 1953 Ore. LEXIS 304
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing by Perry
- **Judges:** Latourette, Warner, Boss-Man, Lusk, Tooze, Perry, Ross-Man
- **Cited by:** 19 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9590038

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that “unity of title in the tract of land [was] severed” when one of the commonly owned parcels was sold to another

## Opinion text

On Petition eor Rehearing
PERRY, J.
Plaintiff has petitioned for a rehearing in this matter.
The plaintiff’s main contention is that the trial court on view of the premises observed a well-defined roadway leading to the rear of the plaintiff’s property. This view of the property by the trial court was not in itself evidence, but was only for the purpose of giving the court a better understanding of the evidence to be offered.
The plaintiff, however, calls our attention to errors which should be corrected.
In paragraph 4 of the opinion we stated “The roadway in which the plaintiff seeks a perpetual easement appurtenant to her property runs generally in a north *274 erly and southerly direction along the western boundary of the plaintiff’s property * * This should be “the eastern boundary of plaintiff’s property.”
In paragraph 5 of the opinion we stated “* * * Subsequent to the conveyance of the property to the defendants plaintiff constructed on the northerly portion of the property retained by her a small rental house, and to the rear of her home she constructed a grain storage bin.” We should have stated that “to the rear of her home she constructed a building for storage.”
We have carefully considered the petition for rehearing and are of the opinion that the conclusion reached in our original opinion is correct.
The petition for rehearing is, therefore, denied.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9590038. Public record. Not legal advice.