Finnerty v. Shade

Kindig, J.,

(dissenting). — I dissent from Division III of the majority opinion on the theory that Finnerty sought to recover on, and proved, an express contract, under which Harrison, and not Shade, was to pay the $3,000 in controversy. It seems to me that the majority entirely disregard the distinction between express and implied contracts. They also ignore the underlying principles of procedure which distinguish between a declaration upon an implied contract and one upon an express agreement.

Every day in the business world, oral contracts are made. These undertakings are just as sacred as…