Smith-Powers Logging Co. v. Bernitt
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Oregon; Charles E. Wolverton, Judge; Suit in equity by E. W. Bernitt and. Victor Wittick against the Smith-Powers Dogging Company and the C. A. Smith Dumber & Manufacturing Company. Decree for complainants, and defendants appeal.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Oregon; Charles E. Wolverton, Judge; Suit in equity by E. W. Bernitt and. Victor Wittick against the Smith-Powers Dogging Company and the C. A. Smith Dumber & Manufacturing Company. Decree for complainants, and defendants appeal. The appellees brought a suit in the court below to recover certain moneys alleged to be due them for an interest in a boom, and for boomage and rafting of logs and piles, under a partnership agreement with the predecessors in interest of the appellants. The facts in the case, as found by the…
1Opinion of the CourtGirbert, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). [1] The appellants rely upon the statute o-f frauds, and contend that that statute applies to a boom and the tidelands on which it is constructed, and that, since the tidelands belonged to E. B. Dean & Co., the predecessors in- interest of the appellees could acquire no interest therein, except by a conveyance in writing. But the statute of frauds does not affect the rights of the parties under the circumstances which are shown by the evidence in this case. “Where an o-ral contract, which is unenforceable by reason of the statute of frauds, has been…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Newman v. . NellisNew York Court of Appeals · 1884
- Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. v. WoodIllinois Supreme Court · 1901
- Jennings v. LentzOregon Supreme Court · 1908
- Meaher v. Cox, Brainard & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1861
- Randall v. LingwallOregon Supreme Court · 1903
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.