Legal Opinion

McFadden v. Friendly

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1881PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Appeal from Benton. The facts are stated in the opinion. The complaint is fatally defective, because no consideration was alleged for making the contract or writing sued upon. (10 Johns., 417; Edwards on Bills, 315 ; Van San. Pleadings, 554.) The agreement to furnish goods to McCullough, was an agreement to give him a credit, for a special purpose, and was a mere accommodation, and he could not have maintained an action against Friendly.

Read the full summary

Appeal from Benton. The facts are stated in the opinion. The complaint is fatally defective, because no consideration was alleged for making the contract or writing sued upon. (10 Johns., 417; Edwards on Bills, 315 ; Van San. Pleadings, 554.) The agreement to furnish goods to McCullough, was an agreement to give him a credit, for a special purpose, and was a mere accommodation, and he could not have maintained an action against Friendly. (Edwards on Bills and Notes, 315, 316, 678.) There were no exceptions to the findings by the circuit court, and no motion for a new trial. The appellant…

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court.

Waldo, J.:

This action is founded upon the following writing:

“ Corvallis, Dec. 23, 1878.
“ This is to certify, that upon a settlement this day made by and between Max Friendly and W. S. McCullough, an agreement was made to obtain goods for the payment of the men and the various expenses attending the logging and sawmill expenses. It was agreed that said W. S. McCullough was entitled to a credit of sixteen hundred and fifty-seven dollars, for goods, at the store of Max Friendly, at Corvallis, and that said amount was included and a part of the sum of $5,920, named in the chattel…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Breeze v. DoyleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
  2. McEwen v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1857
  3. Pralus v. Pac. Gold & Silver Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1868

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Turner v. CyrusOregon Supreme Court · 1919
  2. Drainage Dist. No. 4 v. CrowOregon Supreme Court · 1891
  3. Loomis v. MacFarlaneOregon Supreme Court · 1907
  4. Phillips v. ElliottOregon Supreme Court · 1933
  5. Scott Co. v. Roman Catholic ArchbishopOregon Supreme Court · 1917

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

Powered by the Exa API