Beemer v. Lenske
| Decision Date | 19 May 1965 |
| Citation | 402 P.2d 90,241 Or. 47,80 Or.Adv.Sh. 647 |
| Parties | Joseph D. BEEMER, Respondent, v. Reuben G. LENSKE, Appellant. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Reuben Lenske, Portland, filed briefs pro se.
Robert P. Dickinson, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Latourette, Latourette & Dickinson, Portland.
Before McALLISTER, C. J., and SLOAN, GOODWIN, HOLMAN and LUSK, JJ.
Plaintiff, a certified public accountant, brought this action to recover compensation he alleged was due him for professional services rendered to defendant. Plaintiff recovered on a jury verdict. Defendant appeals from the judgment entered on the verdict. The complaint had alleged, in one count, a balance due on a quantum meruit basis. The second count alleged an account stated. The answer was a general denial and a counterclaim for damages. Nearly all of the evidence was directed to the quantum meruit allegation. The verdict was on that basis.
Plaintiff had done an extensive amount of accounting work for defendant in an attempt to help defendant's defense to a federal charge of income tax evasion. The issue in dispute in the instant case was the amount of time that plaintiff and his associates had devoted to defendant. Defendant also attempted to prove that plaintiff had not performed his work with adequate skill.
There are 21 assignments of error. We are concerned with the assignments directed at the court's refusal to permit defendant to cross-examine plaintiff as to plaintiff's failure to discover errors in the government's accounting in the criminal case. The court ruled that the defense that plaintiff had not performed in a workmanlike manner must be affirmatively alleged, and since it had not been, the court refused to permit defendant to cross-examine plaintiff as mentioned. The court erred. We will not, however, consider other claims that the court erred in refusing to permit defendant to produce similar evidence from other witnesses. There were no offers of proof by which we can judge. An offer of proof is not necessary for the refusal to permit cross examination of plaintiff. Arthur v. Parish, 1935, 150 Or. 582, 591, 47 P.2d 682.
In an early Oregon circuit court case, Albee v. Albee, 1871, 3 Or. 321, 325, it was held that a defendant by his answer must apprise plaintiff that defendant intends to challenge the skill and diligence of the performance of plaintiff's alleged services. The case is wrong and is overruled. Beverly Hospital v. Early,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shepler v. Weyerhaeuser
...where an objection is sustained upon cross-examination. See Stillwell v. S.I.A.C., 243 Or. 158, 411 P.2d 1015 (1966); Beemer v. Lenske, 241 Or. 47, 402 P.2d 90 (1965); and Arthur v. Parish, 150 Or. 582, 47 P.2d 682 (1935). Defendant did make an offer of proof by an attorney for Portland as ......
-
State v. Luther
...knowing what the answer to the question would have been. Stillwell v. S.I.A.C., 243 Or 158, 162, 411 P2d 1015 (1966); Beemer v. Lenske, 241 Or 47, 49, 402 P2d 90 (1965)." This preliminary phase of the defendant's petition is based upon the premise that the question to Gena Luther was on the......
-
State v. Luther
...(1977), and in the cases which have held that it was not necessary (Arthur v. Parish, 150 Or. 582, 47 P.2d 682 (1935), Beemer v. Lenske, 241 Or. 47, 402 P.2d 90 (1965), and State v. Davidson, 252 Or. 617, 451 P.2d 481 (1969)), we are told what question was asked that the court ruled could n......
-
Gaswint v. Case
...(2d ed. 1947) 251--52, 608--09, 621, §§ 40, 96, 97, and Pomeroy's Code Remedies (5th ed. 1929) 893, § 543. Cf. Beemer v. Lenske, 241 Or. 47, 49, 402 P.2d 90 (1965). This is consistent with the view as expressed by this court that under the modern view of the function of pleadings the trial ......