Johnson v. Prineville
Oregon Supreme Court
From Crook: James U. Campbell, Judge. Department 2. This is a suit companion to one of the same title, and like it arises from the same contract whereby the plaintiffs undertook to construct a railroad grade for the defendant city.
Read the full summary
From Crook: James U. Campbell, Judge. Department 2. This is a suit companion to one of the same title, and like it arises from the same contract whereby the plaintiffs undertook to construct a railroad grade for the defendant city. The effort of the plaintiffs here is to revise the estimates and final award of the engineer as to that part of the work beyond station No. 343. The present complaint alleges the execution of the contract and the performance of it by the plaintiffs. It is stated in substance that during the progress of the work a controversy arose between the parties as to the true…
1Opinion of the CourtBubnett, C. J.
Substantially, the only questions argued before us are that this suit amounts to a splitting of the plaintiffs’ cause of suit, and that it is an effort to enforce an award by suit, when the only remedy in such case is by an action at law.
1. It is plain that the contract involved is an entire contract. The work was not to be done by installments. On the contrary, there was but a single task to be performed for a single compensation. Normally, only a single cause of suit or action would arise out of a breach of such a contract, so that the principle applies that no one can be twice vexed for…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Vineseck v. Great Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1917
- Edmonston v. JonesMissouri Court of Appeals · 1902
- Gerhart v. FoutMissouri Court of Appeals · 1896
- Elbersole v. DanielSupreme Court of Alabama · 1906
- Snow Steam Pump Works v. DunnSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1896
3Cited by2 opinions
- Rueda v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1946
- Borg v. Utah Construction Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1925