Quackenbush v. Straight

Oregon Supreme Court

Quackenbush v. Straight

173 P. 667, 89 Or. 294, 1918 Ore. LEXIS 122

DecidedJune 18, 1918

StatusPublished

This text of 173 P. 667 (Quackenbush v. Straight) 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

Quackenbush v. Straight, 173 P. 667, 89 Or. 294, 1918 Ore. LEXIS 122 (Or. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

MOORE, J. —

This is a suit to foreclose an alleged lien.' The material facts are identical with a statement thereof, as set forth in the case of Auld v. Starbard, decided to-day, except that the plaintiffs herein, pursuant to a contract made with the defendant F. S. Starbard, sold and delivered to him hardware to be used in erecting a building at Eugene, Oregon, for the defendants Leroy F. Straight and Hannah, his wife; that the value of such material which was so furnished prior to May 21,1915, when Chap. 185, Gen. Laws Or. 1915, went into effect was fully paid; that thereafter the plaintiffs furnished other material to Starbard of the value of $149.95, but they did not deliver or mail to [295]*295Straight or his wife any duplicate statements of the hardware so sold and delivered to the contractor; that no payments having been made on account of the materia] supplied after June 1, 1915, a lien to secure the payment of the sum so due was filed, and a suit instituted for the foreclosure thereof; that the suit terminated in a decree for the plaintiffs herein granting the relief prayed for in the complaint, and the defendants Straight and wife alone appeal.

The conclusion reached in the Auld case is controlling herein, and such being the case the decree rendered in this cause is reversed and the suit dismissed.

Reversed and Suit Dismissed.

McBride, C. J., Bean and Johns, JJ., concur.

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

MOORE, J. —

This is a suit to foreclose an alleged lien.' The material facts are identical with a statement thereof, as set forth in the case of Auld v. Starbard, decided to-day, except that the plaintiffs herein, pursuant to a contract made with the defendant F. S. Starbard, sold and delivered to him hardware to be used in erecting a building at Eugene, Oregon, for the defendants Leroy F. Straight and Hannah, his wife; that the value of such material which was so furnished prior to May 21,1915, when Chap. 185, Gen. Laws Or. 1915, went into effect was fully paid; that thereafter the plaintiffs furnished other material to Starbard of the value of $149.95, but they did not deliver or mail to [295]*295Straight or his wife any duplicate statements of the hardware so sold and delivered to the contractor; that no payments having been made on account of the materia] supplied after June 1, 1915, a lien to secure the payment of the sum so due was filed, and a suit instituted for the foreclosure thereof; that the suit terminated in a decree for the plaintiffs herein granting the relief prayed for in the complaint, and the defendants Straight and wife alone appeal.

The conclusion reached in the Auld case is controlling herein, and such being the case the decree rendered in this cause is reversed and the suit dismissed.

Reversed and Suit Dismissed.

McBride, C. J., Bean and Johns, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 P. 667, 89 Or. 294, 1918 Ore. LEXIS 122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quackenbush-v-straight-or-1918.