Sinnott v. Interstate Contract Co.
Oregon Supreme Court
From Multnomah: Robert Gr. Morrow, Judge. Action by E. W. Sinnott against the Interstate Contract Company, a corporation. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appealed. Submitted on briefs under the proviso of Supreme Court Rule 18: 56 Or. 622 (117 Pac. xi). In Banc. Statement by Mr. Justice McCamant. It appears that on March 30, 1911, while in the employ of a partnership to whose business the defendant has succeeded, plaintiff sustained a personal injury.
Read the full summary
From Multnomah: Robert Gr. Morrow, Judge. Action by E. W. Sinnott against the Interstate Contract Company, a corporation. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appealed. Submitted on briefs under the proviso of Supreme Court Rule 18: 56 Or. 622 (117 Pac. xi). In Banc. Statement by Mr. Justice McCamant. It appears that on March 30, 1911, while in the employ of a partnership to whose business the defendant has succeeded, plaintiff sustained a personal injury. He contended that his employers were liable for the damages sustained by him and they disputed this contention. The matter was…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice McCamant
1, 2. The sole question presented by this appeal is whether the findings support the judgment of the lower court. The briefs discuss the distinction between entire and severable contracts and that between penalties and liquidated damages. We do not find it necessary to discuss these legal principles. When a written contract is clear and unambiguous there is no room for construction. We can see no escape from the conclusions reached by the lower court in the interpretation of this contract.
Plaintiff releases defendant and its predecessors from all claims which he might otherwise have asserted…
2Cited by2 opinions
- City of Reedsport v. HUBBARD ET UX.Oregon Supreme Court · 1954
- Odom v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaOregon Supreme Court · 1944