Pierce Arrow Co. v. Irwin
Oregon Supreme Court
From Multnomali: Calvin U. Gantenbein, Judge. Suit by the Pierce Arrow Sales Company, a corporation, against G. H. Irwin to foreclose a lien for work and material furnished in the repairing of an automobile under the conditions of a written contract. The defendant appeals from a decree in favor of plaintiff. Submitted on briefs under the proviso of Supreme Court Rule 18: 56 Or. 622 (117 Pac. xi). In Banc. Statement by Mr. Justice Bean.
Read the full summary
From Multnomali: Calvin U. Gantenbein, Judge. Suit by the Pierce Arrow Sales Company, a corporation, against G. H. Irwin to foreclose a lien for work and material furnished in the repairing of an automobile under the conditions of a written contract. The defendant appeals from a decree in favor of plaintiff. Submitted on briefs under the proviso of Supreme Court Rule 18: 56 Or. 622 (117 Pac. xi). In Banc. Statement by Mr. Justice Bean. This is a suit to foreclose a lien on an automobile. From a decree in favor of plaintiff defendant appeals. It is alleged in the complaint that the plaintiff…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Bean
1, 2. The principal contention of the defendant is that there was an express contract that plaintiff should do the job for a sum not exceeding $300. It is also contended that the lien was not filed within 60 days after the automobile was delivered; and that the automobile was delivered to defendant on April 11, 1914. It appears from the evidence that the car was delivered to the defendant after the repairs were completed on April 17, 1914. It is alleged and proved that the lien was filed within 60 days thereafter. It also appears that the defendant was allowed to use the car on April 11th,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Turner v. WentworthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
- Avery v. ButlerOregon Supreme Court · 1897
3Cited by2 opinions
- Hiner v. PittsOregon Supreme Court · 1918
- Gyllenberg v. HerizaOregon Supreme Court · 1928