PORTLAND ELECTRIC & PLUMBING CO. v. Simpson

656 P.2d 394, 61 Or. App. 266, 1983 Ore. App. LEXIS 2155
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedJanuary 12, 1983
Docket41-169; CA A21377
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 656 P.2d 394 (PORTLAND ELECTRIC & PLUMBING CO. v. Simpson) 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
PORTLAND ELECTRIC & PLUMBING CO. v. Simpson, 656 P.2d 394, 61 Or. App. 266, 1983 Ore. App. LEXIS 2155 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).

Opinion

*268 WARDEN, J.

Defendant Simpson had petitioned the Supreme Court for review of our decision in Portland Elec. & Plum, v. Simpson, 59 Or App 486, 651 P2d 172 (1982). The petition for review constitutes a petition for reconsideration by this court. ORAP 10.10. We grant the petition but adhere to our former opinion.

Each of defendant’s checks contained a stamped form of release of lien rights, providing that endorsement of the check constituted execution of the release. The check containing the release in issue was dated March 10, 1980, and was in the amount of $37,260. We held that the release was effective only as to a lien for materials delivered through February 25, 1980.

In reviewing the exhibits again, in the process of our reconsideration, we note that the release form on the back of the check dated March 10, 1980, does not run in favor of this defendant. The release on each of the other checks runs to:

“HOLLY TREE ASSO. LTD.
5355 MURRAY BLVD. S.W.
BEAVERTON, OREGON 97005 or the owner thereof * *

The release on the back of the check dated March 10, 1980, runs to:

“WOODLAND PARK PROPERTIES LTD.
280 12th STREET
HILLSBORO, OREGON 97123 or the owner thereof * * *.”

“Woodland Park Properties Ltd.” is not a party to this action and neither it nor its owner is identified in the record. Assuming arguendo that the release operated to release all liens of plaintiff up to the date of the check, it could not run in favor of defendant because he was not the party named in the release.

Reconsideration granted; former opinion adhered to.

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

Related

Development Northwest, Inc. v. Zhiryada
329 Or. App. 427 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2023)
Landvatter Ready Mix, Inc. v. Buckey
963 S.W.2d 298 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1997)
Medford School Dist. v. PETERSON & JONES
708 P.2d 623 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
656 P.2d 394, 61 Or. App. 266, 1983 Ore. App. LEXIS 2155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/portland-electric-plumbing-co-v-simpson-orctapp-1983.