Barr v. Mitchell
Oregon Supreme Court
Appeal from Multnomah County. This is an action against one Silvers and J. H. Mitchell, the appellant, upon a promissory note. The note is as follows: “Portland, September II, 1873. “One year after date, for value received, I promise to pay William Barr six thousand one hundred and sixty-five dollars and fifty cents in United States gold coin, with interest from date at eight per cent, per annum. Interest payable in like gold coin.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Multnomah County. This is an action against one Silvers and J. H. Mitchell, the appellant, upon a promissory note. The note is as follows: “Portland, September II, 1873. “One year after date, for value received, I promise to pay William Barr six thousand one hundred and sixty-five dollars and fifty cents in United States gold coin, with interest from date at eight per cent, per annum. Interest payable in like gold coin. I reserve the right to use the said money one or two years longer if I see fit. “0. S. Silvers.” It is alleged on the part of the respondent that before the…
1Opinion of the Court
By tbe Court,
Boise, J.:
Tlie first material matter to be decided in coming to a proper understanding of this cause is to determine the nature of the written instrument on which this action is founded. It is contended by the appellant that the words in this instrument, “I reserve the right to use the said money one or two years longer if I see fit,” created as to Mitchell a contingent liability, and was not a part of the note, but was an addition thereto in the nature of a letter of credit. Our construction of this instrument is that it is a non-negotiable promissory note, due three years from…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Griswold v. SlocumNew York Supreme Court · 1851
- Kamm v. HollandOregon Supreme Court · 1863
3Cited by3 opinions
- Lumbermen's Nat. Bank v. CampbellOregon Supreme Court · 1912
- Deering & Co. v. CreightonOregon Supreme Court · 1890
- D. M. Osborne & Co. v. HubbardOregon Supreme Court · 1891