Frank v. Woodcock
Oregon Supreme Court
From Lane: Lawrence T. Harris, Judge. Department 2. Statement by Mr. Justice Bean. This is an action by H. L. Frank against A. C. Woodcock to recover wages for work done by plaintiff upon a ranch in Lane County between February, 1912, and July 15, 1913, at $30 per month, for work of a team of plaintiff 317% days at $2 per day, and $13.20 for certain merchandise purchased by plaintiff for defendant, aggregating $970.25. The cause was tried before a jury and a verdict rendered…
Read the full summary
From Lane: Lawrence T. Harris, Judge. Department 2. Statement by Mr. Justice Bean. This is an action by H. L. Frank against A. C. Woodcock to recover wages for work done by plaintiff upon a ranch in Lane County between February, 1912, and July 15, 1913, at $30 per month, for work of a team of plaintiff 317% days at $2 per day, and $13.20 for certain merchandise purchased by plaintiff for defendant, aggregating $970.25. The cause was tried before a jury and a verdict rendered in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $336.86. From a resulting judgment, the defendant appeals. The defendant…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Bean
The trial court by a special verdict separately submitted to the jury the various items claimed upon each *448side of the cause, and the jury made findings thereon. This obviates the necessity of considering objections and exceptions made and taken by the defendant to evidence in regard to those items which were disallowed to plaintiff. The main point relied upon by counsel for defendant for a reversal of the judgment is the alleged error in the instructions of the court in regard to the liability of an agent: Assignments of error 25 and 26. Upon this question the court instructed the jury as…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Obermeier v. Mortgage Co. Holland-AmericaOregon Supreme Court · 1927
- Obermeier v. MattisonOregon Supreme Court · 1920
- Fischer v. BayerOregon Supreme Court · 1922
- Lutz v. Tax CommissionOhio Court of Appeals · 1935