Wicks v. Sanborn
Oregon Supreme Court
From Clatsop: James A. Eakin, Judge. Department 2. Statement by-Mr. Justice Harris. This is the second appeal of a dispute involving $90: See 72 Or. 321 (143 Pac. 1007). The plaintiff, John E. Wicks, alleges that he is an architect, that at the request of defendant, Frank H. Sanborn, he drew a set of plans reasonably worth $90 for a dwelling-house, and that the defendant has refused to pay for the plans.
Read the full summary
From Clatsop: James A. Eakin, Judge. Department 2. Statement by-Mr. Justice Harris. This is the second appeal of a dispute involving $90: See 72 Or. 321 (143 Pac. 1007). The plaintiff, John E. Wicks, alleges that he is an architect, that at the request of defendant, Frank H. Sanborn, he drew a set of plans reasonably worth $90 for a dwelling-house, and that the defendant has refused to pay for the plans. The answer avers that the defendant contemplated the erection of a dwelling-house, that the plaintiff agreed that he would prepare a set of plans with the understanding that the defendant…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Harris
The assignments of error question the refusal of the court to direct a verdict for the defendant, and also complain of the giving and refusal to give other instructions. The negotiations for the plans were for the most part conducted by plaintiff and C. L. Houston, a contractor. The controversy between the liti*368gants largely results from their variant claims concerning the authority of Houston. Wicks argues that Houston had sufficient authority to make the agreement relied upon by the plaintiff, while Sanborn contends that Houston lacked the requisite authority. A brief reference to the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Baines v. Coos Bay Navigation Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1907
- Wicks v. SanbornOregon Supreme Court · 1914
3Cited by2 opinions
- Howland v. Fenner Manufacturing Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1927
- Elerath Steel & Iron Co. v. CornfootOregon Supreme Court · 1927