Hamilton v. Hamilton Mammoth Mines, Inc.
Oregon Supreme Court
From Baker: David R. Parker, Judge. Department 2. This appeal is from a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff and respondent and against the defendant and appellant. The case was tried to the court without a jury. The complaint is based upon a contract between the parties wherein the defendant employed the plaintiff as its general manager, at an agreed salary $500 per month. The plaintiff was also the president of the defendant corporation.
Read the full summary
From Baker: David R. Parker, Judge. Department 2. This appeal is from a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff and respondent and against the defendant and appellant. The case was tried to the court without a jury. The complaint is based upon a contract between the parties wherein the defendant employed the plaintiff as its general manager, at an agreed salary $500 per month. The plaintiff was also the president of the defendant corporation. The answer admits the execution of the contract; that the plaintiff entered into the employment of the defendant in accordance with the terms of the…
1Opinion of the CourtCoshow, J.
1, 2. The Circuit Court was correct in treating the case as an action at law. The- allegations of the answer do not constitute a defense to the complaint. At most, the facts attempted to be alleged would constitute a counterclaim. Section 390, Or. L., does not authorize the pleading of equitable counterclaims in actions at law. In order to defend an action at law with matters cognizable in equity only, the matters relied upon must be material to the defense in the cause of action alleged in the complaint. The language of the statute in this regard was not materially changed by the amendment…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Old Dominion Copper Mining & Smelting Co. v. BigelowMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
- Old Dominion Copper Mining & Smelting Co. v. LewisohnSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Stark v. State Industrial Accident CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1922
- Cannon v. Farmers' Union Grain AgencyOregon Supreme Court · 1921
- Heidel v. ShuteOregon Supreme Court · 1917
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Hays v. Georgian Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1932
- Yellow Manufacturing Acceptance Corp. v. BristolOregon Supreme Court · 1951
- Smith v. WhiteOregon Supreme Court · 1962
- Jeffs v. Utah Power & Light Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1940
- HUNT v. BishopOregon Supreme Court · 1951
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.