Peck v. Voget
Oregon Supreme Court
From Marion: George H. Burnett, Judge. Statement by Mr. Justice McBride. This is an action by S. E. Peck against Julius G. Voget, to recover damages for the nonperformance of a contract to build a dwelling house for plaintiff, according to certain plans and specifications.
Read the full summary
From Marion: George H. Burnett, Judge. Statement by Mr. Justice McBride. This is an action by S. E. Peck against Julius G. Voget, to recover damages for the nonperformance of a contract to build a dwelling house for plaintiff, according to certain plans and specifications. The complaint alleges that defendant entered into a written contract with plaintiff to build a dwelling house on lot 16, block 2, in the city of Salem, according to certain plans and specifications, which are made a part of the complaint, from which it appears that defendant was to build for plaintiff a house of certain…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice McBride
The objection to the evidence offered by defendant was properly sustained. The contract for breach of which the action was brought is set forth fully as an exhibit to the complaint, and shows an absolute agreement to build a house for plaintiff. If defendant wished to insist upon *146the proposition that plaintiff, though apparently acting in his own name, was really the agent of an undisclosed principal, he should have raised that question by suitable denials in the answer, so that plaintiff would be put upon notice and prepared to defend: Goetz v. Ambs, 27 Mo. 28; Prall v. Peters, 32 Neb. 832…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Goetz v. AmbsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1858
- Prall v. PetersNebraska Supreme Court · 1891