Legal Opinion

Franklin v. Ferguson

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided December 2, 1924PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMcBRIDE, C. J.

The whole contention here is as to the construction of the following clause in the last paragraph of the contract:

“This contract not valid unless signed by twenty people, and should deficit occur each signer will be held responsible for their equal share.”

Without these words the contract would have been a joint contract, but we are clearly of the opinion that this clause makes it a several contract, upon which each signer must be sued separately for his proportionate share of the $1,250 alleged to be due: Hayden v. Pearce, 33 Or. 89, 91 (52 Pac. 1049); Gaines v. Vandecar, 59 Or. 187 (115 Pac.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Gibbons v. GrinselWisconsin Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Gaines v. VandecarOregon Supreme Court · 1911
  3. Hayden v. PearceOregon Supreme Court · 1898

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. LITHIA LUMBER COMPANY v. LambOregon Supreme Court · 1968
  2. Closset v. Portland Amusement Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1930

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

Powered by the Exa API