Legal Opinion

Eilertsen v. WEBER

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided April 8, 1953PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPerry, J.

This is an action at law to recover in quantum meruit for work and labor performed. The plaintiff prevailed and the defendants appeal.

The defendants assign as error the trial court’s refusal to grant their motion for a directed verdict, their contention being that the oral promise of the de fendant Yernon F. Weber to pay the sum recovered is a promise to answer for the debt, default or miscarriage of another and is within § 2-909, subsection 2, OCLA (statute of frauds) and therefore all oral evidence of the promise is incompetent; on the further ground that there was a complete failure of…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Corn v. SimsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1860
  2. Fish v. Southern Pacific Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1943
  3. Fullam v. AdamsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1864
  4. Ames v. FosterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
  5. Clifford v. LuhringIllinois Supreme Court · 1873

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Otto Contracting Co. v. S. Schinella & Son, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
  2. Sugar v. MillerUtah Supreme Court · 1957
  3. Nephi Processing Plant, Inc., a Corporation v. Western Cooperative Hatcheries, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1957
  4. Copenhagen, Inc. v. KRAMER ET UXOregon Supreme Court · 1960
  5. Columbia Brick Works v. FREEMAN ET UXOregon Supreme Court · 1960

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API