Sheridan v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co.

Oregon Supreme Court

Sheridan v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co.

267 P.2d 1104, 200 Or. 636, 1954 Ore. LEXIS 202

CourtOregon Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 17, 1954

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 267 P.2d 1104 (Sheridan v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph 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

Sheridan v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co., 267 P.2d 1104, 200 Or. 636, 1954 Ore. LEXIS 202 (Or. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an action for damages predicated upon the defendant’s failure to print correctly in plaintiff’s advertisement appearing in the classified section of *637 defendant’s telephone directory the telephone number of her place of business. We are not supplied with a bill of exceptions. Depending solely upon defendant’s brief, we find that the only error disclosed therein arises out of an alleged instruction which plaintiff says had the effect of limiting defendant’s liability under the advertising contract to the cost thereof. On an annual basis this would be $87. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff in that amount. From the ensuing judgment, plaintiff appeals.

In the absence of a bill of exceptions, our consideration must be confined to the sufficiency of the pleadings, the findings of the trial court or to whether the pleadings or findings support the judgment. Boice v. Boice, 196 Or 346, 248 P2d 1069; La Grande Air Service v. Tyler et al., 193 Or 329, 330, 237 P2d 503, and cases there cited. Since the record is sufficient in this limited area of inquiry, the judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an action for damages predicated upon the defendant’s failure to print correctly in plaintiff’s advertisement appearing in the classified section of *637 defendant’s telephone directory the telephone number of her place of business. We are not supplied with a bill of exceptions. Depending solely upon defendant’s brief, we find that the only error disclosed therein arises out of an alleged instruction which plaintiff says had the effect of limiting defendant’s liability under the advertising contract to the cost thereof. On an annual basis this would be $87. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff in that amount. From the ensuing judgment, plaintiff appeals.

In the absence of a bill of exceptions, our consideration must be confined to the sufficiency of the pleadings, the findings of the trial court or to whether the pleadings or findings support the judgment. Boice v. Boice, 196 Or 346, 248 P2d 1069; La Grande Air Service v. Tyler et al., 193 Or 329, 330, 237 P2d 503, and cases there cited. Since the record is sufficient in this limited area of inquiry, the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 P.2d 1104, 200 Or. 636, 1954 Ore. LEXIS 202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheridan-v-pacific-telephone-telegraph-co-or-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack