Brown v. Cahalin
Multnomah County Circuit Court, Oregon
The plaintiff alleges that he and the defendant were partners, owning a building and a stock of goods; that the parties dissolved the partnership, and that he sold his interest in the building, the goods and the business to the defendant for the sum of fifteen hundred dollars, which sum the defendant promised to pay him upon request, but had only paid $35, and, although requested, refused to pay the balance, $1,465. The answer admits the purchase of the building and goods,…
Read the full summary
The plaintiff alleges that he and the defendant were partners, owning a building and a stock of goods; that the parties dissolved the partnership, and that he sold his interest in the building, the goods and the business to the defendant for the sum of fifteen hundred dollars, which sum the defendant promised to pay him upon request, but had only paid $35, and, although requested, refused to pay the balance, $1,465. The answer admits the purchase of the building and goods, but denies that the defendant promised to pay therefor $1,500, or any sum; but says that at the time of the dissolution…
1Opinion of the Court
The motion submitted, and taken under advisement, tbe following opinion was filed granting a new trial.
Upton, J.
The first objection is not well taken; it is a general rule that a written receipt may be explained by parol. And tbe general rule that a party is not permitted to dispute bis own deed, is subject to tbe exception that a party may show that tbe consideration expressed in tbe deed is not tbe actual consideration, whenever that becomes a material point.
There is equal reason for permitting a party to show that tbe acknowledged payment has not been made. It is an everyday practice to…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Houston v. GreinerOregon Supreme Court · 1914
- Dodds v. Mayer Et Ux.Oregon Supreme Court · 1930
- Cockerham v. First Nat. Bank of RedmondOregon Supreme Court · 1931
- Fallis v. GriffithOhio Supreme Court · 1833