Albee v. Albee
Washington County Circuit Court, Oregon
The complaint was for $40 per month, alleged to be the reasonable value of labor done by the plaintiff for the defendant at his request, from a specified day in 1868, for a period of two years. The answer, in regard to each allegation of the complaint, contained a denial qualified by the words “except as hereinafter set forth.”
Read the full summary
The complaint was for $40 per month, alleged to be the reasonable value of labor done by the plaintiff for the defendant at his request, from a specified day in 1868, for a period of two years. The answer, in regard to each allegation of the complaint, contained a denial qualified by the words “except as hereinafter set forth.” The answer proceeded to set forth, that the plaintiff was the defendant’s son; that during all the time set forthinthe complaint, except the last six months thereof, the plaintiff was a minor. That before the time mentioned in the complaint, the plaintiff had been a…
1Opinion of the CourtUpton, J.
Held, that although a promise for the sale of land is void unless in writing, it is not necessary to declare in the pleading that the promise is in writing.
The demurrer was overruled.
The replication denied making the contract set forth in the answer, admitted that such a plan had been talked of, during the plaintiff’s minority, but averred that the defendant refused to enter into such a contract. And averred that the defendant had previously given the plaintiff his time.
A jury being impanneled and sworn, the plaintiff, called on his own behalf as a witness, was asked :
How long did you work…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Wolfgang v. Henry Thiele Catering Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1929
- Beemer v. LenskeOregon Supreme Court · 1965
- Smith v. JacksonOregon Supreme Court · 1920
- Ingerslev v. Goodman.Oregon Supreme Court · 1925
- Simmons v. FoxOregon Supreme Court · 1949