Rohr v. Baker
Oregon Supreme Court
Multnomah County. Plaintiff appeals. The parties in this action were several street contractors with the city of Portland for excavating earth. Rohr, by mistake, and without Baker’s knowledge, excavated a quantity of earth on ground covered by Baker’s contract. Baker completed his contract, and received the contract' price. Rohr brings this action to recover for the actual cost of the work done by him, and for which he claims'. Baker received the benefit.
1Opinion of the CourtWaldo, C. J.
“An agreement concerning things personal is a mutual assent of the parties.” (Plowd. 5.)"' There may he circumstances from which a tacit assent may be inferred, but in every case this assent is a fact which must be proved. No man can make another his-debtor against his will; as if a man pay my debt without.' my request, I am not bound to repay him.
In Bixby v. Moor, 51 N. H. 403, the court say:
“ It is sometimes said that the law implies an agreement. Strictly speaking, this is inaccurate. The agreement, though not fully expressed in words, is nevertheless a genuine agreement of the parties. It…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Day v. CatonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
- Bartholomew v. JacksonNew York Supreme Court · 1822
- Davis v. School District No. 2Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1844
3Cited by9 opinions
- State v. FunkOregon Supreme Court · 1921
- Phez Co. v. Salem Fruit UnionOregon Supreme Court · 1924
- Robinowitz v. PozziCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1994
- Moss v. WinstonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1928
- Forbis v. InmanOregon Supreme Court · 1892
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.