Hientz v. Burkhard
Oregon Supreme Court
Appeal from Multnomah: E. D. Shattuck, Judge. This action was brought by A. R. Heintz and Company against Joseph Burkhard to recover damages for the breach of a contract to furnish the iron work for defendant’s building, and comes here on an appeal from a judgment of nonsuit.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Multnomah: E. D. Shattuck, Judge. This action was brought by A. R. Heintz and Company against Joseph Burkhard to recover damages for the breach of a contract to furnish the iron work for defendant’s building, and comes here on an appeal from a judgment of nonsuit. For the purposes of this appeal it is sufficient to say that the evidence tended to show that in August, eighteen hundred and ninety-four, the plaintiff and defendant entered into an oral contract, by the terms of which Heintz was to manufacture and furnish to Burkhard the iron work for a brick building about to be…
1Opinion of the Court
*59Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Bean.
To determine whether a given contract concerning personal property, which does not exist in specie at the time it is entered into, but must be manufactured and brought into being under the contract, comes within the statute of frauds, is not without difficulty, and the decisions are by no means reconcilable. The chief difficulty in all such cases is encountered in determining when the contract is substantially for the sale of personal property to be executed in the future, and when for work and labor and material only. If the former, it is within the statute;…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Goddard v. BinneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
- Cooke v. . MillardNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Crookshank v. BurrellNew York Supreme Court · 1820
- Parsons v. . LoucksNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Downs & Skillinger v. RossNew York Supreme Court · 1840
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Parks v. ElmoreWashington Supreme Court · 1910
- Courtney v. Bridal Veil Box FactoryOregon Supreme Court · 1909
- Williams-Hayward Shoe Co. v. BrooksWyoming Supreme Court · 1901
- Lewis v. EvansSupreme Court of Iowa · 1899