Artman v. Ray
| Decision Date | 06 October 1972 |
| Citation | 263 Or. 529,502 P.2d 1376 |
| Parties | John B. ARTMAN, Respondent, v. Ozzie RAY, whose true name is Earl M. Ray, et al., Appellants. . On Respondent's Petition for Rehearing Filed |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Huffman & Zenger and H. Kenneth Zenger, Hillsboro, for the petition.
No appearance contra.
Plaintiff filed a petition for rehearing.
The plaintiff brought this action for conversion alleging defendants converted the plaintiff's truck by (1) having it towed into a garage and also (2) by refusing to return it to plaintiff unless he paid he tow and storage charges. The trial court found the initial pick up did not constitute a conversion; however, it submitted the second allegation to the jury who found it was a conversion and awarded punitive damages. We held that under the circumstances the withholding for payment of charges was not a conversion.
Plaintiff argued that the judgment should be sustained because the trial court erred in not submitting to the jury the question of whether the initial pick up of the car was a conversion. We held plaintiff was foreclosed from contesting this ruling of the trial court because even if such argument was correct the verdict could not be sustained upon this ground. Plaintiff in his petition contends we were in error in this regard, as well as others.
Our opinion may be misleading as regards the reasons for the ruling in this particular case. For this reason we will attempt clarification.
If the trial court erred in not submitting to the jury the issue of whether the first pick up was a conversion, the judgment nevertheless cannot be affirmed. The judgment was based upon a verdict that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bakker v. Baza'r, Inc.
...having received a favorable judgment, for defendant to have filed a cross appeal. See Artman v. Ray, 263 Or. 529, 501 P.2d 63, 502 P.2d 1376 (1972).3 'MR. ACKER: Your Honor, what I wanted to bring up is, I have a problem relating to some questions I intend to ask the plaintiff, but I though......
-
Emery v. State
...court was in error in failing to award them a judgment under the common law bailment. In Artman v. Ray, 263 Or. 529, 533, 501 P.2d 63, 502 P.2d 1376 (1972), this court said:"When the respondent is seeking to sustain the judgment he should not be required to cross-appeal from the judgment in......
-
Wheeler v. Green
...except Green, notwithstanding the verdict, on two of plaintiff's causes of action. He cites Artman v. Ray, 263 Or. 529, 501 P.2d 63, 502 P.2d 1376 (1972) in support of his contention that we should consider this alleged error in spite of his failure to cross-appeal. That case held, however,......
-
Cron v. Zimmer
...approximately $15,000 from the mineral rights. Defendant, relying on Artman v. Ray, 263 Or. 529, 531, 501 P.2d 63,on reh'g,263 Or. 529, 502 P.2d 1376 (1972), argues that a plaintiff must be entitled to immediate possession of a chattel to successfully assert that the defendant's failure to ......
-
§ 2.3 Whether And When To Cross-Appeal
...principle are often misunderstood. See Artman v. Ray, 263 Or 529, 533-34, 501 P2d 63, decision clarified on denial of reh'g, 263 Or 529, 502 P2d 1376 (1972) (distinguishing proper use of cross-assignments of error and cross-appeals); see also ORAP 5.57(2) (cross-assignment of error is appro......