McCarthy v. Frazier
Oregon Supreme Court
From Multnomah: William N. Gatees, Judge. Department 1. 1. The plaintiff hired to the defendants some horses and their equipment, which is admitted.
Read the full summary
From Multnomah: William N. Gatees, Judge. Department 1. 1. The plaintiff hired to the defendants some horses and their equipment, which is admitted. In the third count, being the part of the complaint questioned, there is this allegation: “That the time the plaintiff hired to the defendants, the horses, he also hired to them some harnesses, and other equipment with them and at said time it was agreed by and between plaintiff and defendants that if any of said personal property was lost or damaged the defendants would pay plaintiff the reasonable value of the property so lost. “And thereafter…
1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.
In Cooper v. Hillsboro Garden Tracts, 78 Or. 74, 83 (152 Pac. 488, 491, Ann. Cas. 1917E, 840), this court, speaking by Mr, Justice Harris said:
“The complaint might have been vulnerable to a demurrer if interposed before the commencement of the trial; but, no objection having been made until the introduction of testimony, the complaint must be liberally construed, and is entitled to all the intendments in its favor which could be invoked after a decision on the merits of the controversy: Schoellhamer v. Rometsch, 26 Or. 394 (38 Pac. 344); Currey v. Butcher, 37 Or. 380 (61 Pac. 631); Creecy v.…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Currey v. ButcherOregon Supreme Court · 1900
- Bade v. HibberdOregon Supreme Court · 1908
- Cooper v. Hillsboro Garden TractsOregon Supreme Court · 1915
- Creecy v. JoyOregon Supreme Court · 1901
- Patterson v. PattersonOregon Supreme Court · 1902
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- People v. ProffittColorado Court of Appeals · 1993
- Stone Ex Rel. Estate of Webster v. WebsterIdaho Supreme Court · 1943
- Nadstanek v. TraskOregon Supreme Court · 1929