O'Brien v. Duthie & Co.

Oregon Supreme Court

O'Brien v. Duthie & Co.

282 P. 1118, 131 Or. 611

DecidedJanuary 21, 1930

StatusPublished

This text of 282 P. 1118 (O'Brien v. Duthie & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

O'Brien v. Duthie & Co., 282 P. 1118, 131 Or. 611 (Or. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

BELT, J.

This is an action to recover upon express contracts for work and labor alleged to have *612 been performed at the special instance and request of the defendant. There is no issue as to the value nor the amount of the labor performed by plaintiff and his assignors. The defendant denies that it ever entered into any contract of employment. Verdict and judgment was had for the plaintiff. Defendant appeals, assigning as sole error the failure of the court to allow its motion for a judgment of nonsuit.

"We have carefully examined the record in this case and we find there is evidence from which the jury could draw the reasonable inference that the defendant impliedly authorized the employment of the plaintiff and his assignors.

A 'detailed recital of the evidence would fill many pages of the reports and would be of no value to the profession generally. No questions of law are involved. It is solely one of fact, and we see no reason to disturb the verdict of the jury.

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BELT, J.

This is an action to recover upon express contracts for work and labor alleged to have *612 been performed at the special instance and request of the defendant. There is no issue as to the value nor the amount of the labor performed by plaintiff and his assignors. The defendant denies that it ever entered into any contract of employment. Verdict and judgment was had for the plaintiff. Defendant appeals, assigning as sole error the failure of the court to allow its motion for a judgment of nonsuit.

"We have carefully examined the record in this case and we find there is evidence from which the jury could draw the reasonable inference that the defendant impliedly authorized the employment of the plaintiff and his assignors.

A 'detailed recital of the evidence would fill many pages of the reports and would be of no value to the profession generally. No questions of law are involved. It is solely one of fact, and we see no reason to disturb the verdict of the jury.

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 P. 1118, 131 Or. 611, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/obrien-v-duthie-co-or-1930.