Anderson v. Council Lumber Co.
Idaho Supreme Court
APPEAL from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, for Adams County. Hon. Ed. L. Bryan, Judge. Action on contract. Judgment for plaintiff. No time being named when respondent was to be paid, it must be taken, as a matter of law, that he was to be paid when he had fully completed his contract and not before.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, for Adams County. Hon. Ed. L. Bryan, Judge. Action on contract. Judgment for plaintiff. No time being named when respondent was to be paid, it must be taken, as a matter of law, that he was to be paid when he had fully completed his contract and not before. (Waite v. G. E. Shoemaker & Go., 50 Mont. 264, 146 Pac. 736.) 'Respondent thus brings himself and his action clearly within the provisions of see. 4212, Rev. Codes. The theory of respondent’s pleading and proof on the trial, was that of action upon an express contract,…
1Opinion of the CourtBudge, C. J.
This is an action brought by the respondent against the appellant, upon an oral contract, to recover a balance of $387.68, alleged to be due respondent thereunder. There were several causes of action pleaded in the complaint but the only one at issue here is the first cause of action, involving the contract above mentioned, the other eauses of action having been waived by the respondent.
It appears that respondent agreed to cut and haul a certain quantity of sawlogs for appellant “the amount of logs to be the amount of timber purchased by the said defendant from the United States Government,”…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Saunders v. ShortCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1898
- Turner v. GoodmanAppellate Court of Illinois · 1900
- Huber v. Blackwell Lumber Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1915