Oregon/Washington Credit & Collection Co v. Rich

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Oregon/Washington Credit & Collection Co v. Rich

650 P.2d 1094, 59 Or. App. 407, 1982 Ore. App. LEXIS 3792

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedSeptember 22, 1982

DocketNo. 218-091, CA A23965

StatusPublished

This text of 650 P.2d 1094 (Oregon/Washington Credit & Collection Co v. Rich) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Oregon/Washington Credit & Collection Co v. Rich, 650 P.2d 1094, 59 Or. App. 407, 1982 Ore. App. LEXIS 3792 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an action to recover rent due under a commercial sign lease. Contending that lessor had materially breached the lease agreement, defendant-lessee ceased paying rent. She asserted at trial that lessor, plaintiffs assignor, had not acted in good faith during negotiations concerning the removal and reinstallation of the sign. The trial judge denied plaintiffs motion for a directed verdict and submitted that issue to the jury, acknowledging that, although the evidence on the question was slight, there was some evidence. After the jury found that lessor had not acted in good faith and returned a verdict for defendant, the trial judge granted plaintiffs motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. That was error. Jacobs v. Tidewater Barge Lines, 277 Or 809, 562 P2d 545 (1977); Hill v. Garner, 277 Or 641, 561 P2d 1016, appeal dismissed 434 US 989, 98 S Ct 623, 54 L Ed 2d 486 (1977); Huston v. Trans-Mark Services, 45 Or App 801, 609 P2d 848, rev den 289 Or 587 (1980). See also Or Const, Art VII (Amended), § 3.

Reversed and remanded with instructions to reinstate the jury verdict.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an action to recover rent due under a commercial sign lease. Contending that lessor had materially breached the lease agreement, defendant-lessee ceased paying rent. She asserted at trial that lessor, plaintiffs assignor, had not acted in good faith during negotiations concerning the removal and reinstallation of the sign. The trial judge denied plaintiffs motion for a directed verdict and submitted that issue to the jury, acknowledging that, although the evidence on the question was slight, there was some evidence. After the jury found that lessor had not acted in good faith and returned a verdict for defendant, the trial judge granted plaintiffs motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. That was error. Jacobs v. Tidewater Barge Lines, 277 Or 809, 562 P2d 545 (1977); Hill v. Garner, 277 Or 641, 561 P2d 1016, appeal dismissed 434 US 989, 98 S Ct 623, 54 L Ed 2d 486 (1977); Huston v. Trans-Mark Services, 45 Or App 801, 609 P2d 848, rev den 289 Or 587 (1980). See also Or Const, Art VII (Amended), § 3.

Reversed and remanded with instructions to reinstate the jury verdict.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

650 P.2d 1094, 59 Or. App. 407, 1982 Ore. App. LEXIS 3792, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oregonwashington-credit-collection-co-v-rich-orctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack