Barnard & Bunker v. Houser
Oregon Supreme Court
From Multnomah: William N. Gatens, Judge. Statement by Mr. Justice Burnett. The plaintiff, Barnard & Bunker, a California corporation, brings this action against M. Houser, a grain dealer residing in this state.
Read the full summary
From Multnomah: William N. Gatens, Judge. Statement by Mr. Justice Burnett. The plaintiff, Barnard & Bunker, a California corporation, brings this action against M. Houser, a grain dealer residing in this state. The complaint alleges: “That on or about November 7, 1911, plaintiff contracted and agreed with defendant to buy of him, and the defendant contracted to sell to the plaintiff, 150 tons of No. 1 feed barley, Portland Standard, at the price of $1.65 per hundred pounds, and at said time defendant further contracted and agreed to deliver said barley f. o. b. steamer at the City of…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Burnett
1. In proving a custom it is necessary to show not only that it was universal in the locality where it obtains, but also that it was known to the parties contracting in reference thereto, or that it was of such general acceptance that knowledge of the same would be necessarily implied. There is no testimony in the record showing that the custom was universal. On the contrary, every witness speaking on the subject says that by far the greater part of the grain handled at the port of Portland was marketed without any certificate whatever, and the testimony further fails to show that the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Savage v. Salem Mills Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1906
- Holmes v. WhitakerOregon Supreme Court · 1892
3Cited by17 opinions
- Bliss v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO.Oregon Supreme Court · 1958
- Hurst v. Lake Co., Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1932
- Interior Warehouse Co. v. DunnOregon Supreme Court · 1916
- Smith v. ABELOregon Supreme Court · 1957
- Oregon Fisheries Co. v. Elmore Packing Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1914
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.