Wilson v. Davis

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Wilson v. Davis

728 P.2d 103, 82 Or. App. 415

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedNovember 12, 1986

Docket8607; CA A38384

StatusPublished

This text of 728 P.2d 103 (Wilson v. Davis) 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

Wilson v. Davis, 728 P.2d 103, 82 Or. App. 415 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Plaintiffs brought this action to recover money that was deposited in a joint checking account at defendant bank. The dispute is over the terms of the agreement of deposit, plaintiffs contending that defendant had agreed that two signatures, one of which was required to be plaintiff Estelle Wilson’s, were necessary to authorize withdrawal of money from the account. Defendant contended that any two of the three account holders were authorized to withdraw funds, and it honored checks signed only by the other account holders, Jones and Davis, who withdrew most of the money from the account. A jury found for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals, assigning error to the giving of one instruction, the failure to give requested instructions and to submitting the question of prejudgment interest to the jury.

We are satisfied that the instructions as a whole fairly presented the case to the jury and that there was no error in refusing to give defendant’s requested instructions. However, it was error for the court, sua sponte, to authorize prejudgment interest when plaintiffs did not allege their entitlement to it. Before prejudgment interest may be awarded, the complaint must allege a claim for it. Booras v. Uyeda, 295 Or 181, 188 n 3, 666 P2d 791 (1983); Shepherd v. Hub Lumber Co., 273 Or 331, 349, 541 P2d 439 (1975).

Judgment modified to eliminate award of prejudgment interest; affirmed as modified.

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

PER CURIAM

Plaintiffs brought this action to recover money that was deposited in a joint checking account at defendant bank. The dispute is over the terms of the agreement of deposit, plaintiffs contending that defendant had agreed that two signatures, one of which was required to be plaintiff Estelle Wilson’s, were necessary to authorize withdrawal of money from the account. Defendant contended that any two of the three account holders were authorized to withdraw funds, and it honored checks signed only by the other account holders, Jones and Davis, who withdrew most of the money from the account. A jury found for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals, assigning error to the giving of one instruction, the failure to give requested instructions and to submitting the question of prejudgment interest to the jury.

We are satisfied that the instructions as a whole fairly presented the case to the jury and that there was no error in refusing to give defendant’s requested instructions. However, it was error for the court, sua sponte, to authorize prejudgment interest when plaintiffs did not allege their entitlement to it. Before prejudgment interest may be awarded, the complaint must allege a claim for it. Booras v. Uyeda, 295 Or 181, 188 n 3, 666 P2d 791 (1983); Shepherd v. Hub Lumber Co., 273 Or 331, 349, 541 P2d 439 (1975).

Judgment modified to eliminate award of prejudgment interest; affirmed as modified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

728 P.2d 103, 82 Or. App. 415, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-davis-orctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack