Underwood v. French
Oregon Supreme Court
Appeal from Polk County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. . The court below erred in admitting parol testimony to explain the judgment and judgment-roll in the former action, the record itself being conclusive as the matters there tried. In order to avoid the effect of the bar, the circuit court allowed the proof excepted to, and the jury therefore disregarded it. The ruling in effect allowed the plaintiff to split an entire demand.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Polk County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. . The court below erred in admitting parol testimony to explain the judgment and judgment-roll in the former action, the record itself being conclusive as the matters there tried. In order to avoid the effect of the bar, the circuit court allowed the proof excepted to, and the jury therefore disregarded it. The ruling in effect allowed the plaintiff to split an entire demand. This was erroneous. .Leaving out of this case the special damages for the wood-boat and the wood-chutes, the causes of action are identical, and…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Watson, J.:
The errors assigned appear in the bill of exceptions. The complaint sets up a contract made between plaintiff and defendants, August 1, 1874, in which plaintiff agreed to furnish and deliver, arid defendants agreed to receive and pay for, at Underwood’s ferry, on the Columbia river, one thousand cords of fir wood, to be delivered daily, Sundays excepted, as needed by the defendants for the steamboat then owned and run by them on the Columbia river. Defendants agreed to pay for the wood so furnished three dollars and fifty cents per cord, in gold coin. Plaintiff…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Freeman v. McAninchTexas Supreme Court · 1894
- Glenn v. SavageOregon Supreme Court · 1887
- Slater v. SkirvingNebraska Supreme Court · 1897
- Barrett v. FailingOregon Supreme Court · 1879
- Oster v. BroeIndiana Supreme Court · 1902
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.