Smith v. Kinney
Oregon Supreme Court
From Coos: John S. Coke, Judge. Department 1. Statement by Mr. Justice Burnett. This is an action by F. A. Smith against L. D. Kinney.
Read the full summary
From Coos: John S. Coke, Judge. Department 1. Statement by Mr. Justice Burnett. This is an action by F. A. Smith against L. D. Kinney. It appears from the complaint that the plaintiff and his assignees sold a steam vessel known as the “Liberty” to the defendant for $9,000, in payment for which he issued to each of them a writing called a “pool certificate,” in what is known as “Kinney’s Plat C Pool,” and guaranteed to each of them the payment of the principal of the certificates of $3,000, each with interest from date until payment was demanded at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. It seems…
1Opinion
On Petition for Rehearing.
(143 Pac. 1126.)
2Opinion of the CourtJustice Burnett
In a petition for rehearing it is strongly urged that the issue and acceptance of the three so-called “pool certificates” for $6,000 each, upon which the action is maintained in three counts, constituted an account *520stated binding upon the court, and precluding inquiry into the original transaction upon which it is based.
3. The complaint gives a history of all the evidence and draws the conclusion that the result was “an account stated. ” As a question of pleading, the case is much like Nicoll v. Haas, 5 App. Div. 206 (39 N. Y. Supp. 205), where the…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
3Cases cited1 opinion
- Nicoll v. HaasAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896