Crane v. School Dist. No. 14 of Tillamook County
Decision Date | 30 March 1920 |
Citation | 95 Or. 644,188 P. 712 |
Parties | CRANE v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 14 OF TILLAMOOK COUNTY. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
In Banc.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Tillamook County; George R. Bagley Judge.
Action by Frank Crane against School District No. 14 of Tillamook County, Or. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
The complaint alleges that prior to August 26, 1918, by a majority vote of its legal electors the defendant was authorized to furnish transportation to all of the pupils in the district living more than two miles distant from the school building, and:
"That on or about August 26, 1918, said school district, acting through its district school board, employed plaintiff to transport the pupils of defendant district to and from the school of said district for a term of nine school months beginning on September 16, 1918, and agreed to pay plaintiff therefor, at the rate of $95 per school month payable monthly."
It is then alleged that plaintiff accepted and entered into the performance of the contract, but that the defendant, on or about October 14, 1918, closed its school and did not reopen it until about February 10, 1919, and:
"That during the time said school was so closed the plaintiff was at all times ready, able, and willing to furnish the transportation provided for in said contract, and held himself in readiness at all of said time so to do; that the closing of said school during said period was not at the request or with the consent of plaintiff, nor with any agreement that his said contract of employment should be in any way modified."
The plaintiff says that the defendant paid him $95 for the first month's services, but has failed and refused to pay him anything for the four months beginning October 14, 1918; that about February 8, 1919, he presented an itemized account, but that the claim was considered about April 24, 1919, when the defendant wrongfully disallowed it. He asks judgment for $380.
The defendant filed a motion to strike out paragraph 3 of the complaint, first above quoted, "for the reason that the same is irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial." "And in case the court overrules the said motion to strike, the defendant moves that the complaint be made more definite and certain by setting forth therein the date on which was held the alleged meeting, which, it is alleged authorized the school board of said district to furnish the transportation mentioned in paragraph 2 of the complaint." Both motions were denied. A demurrer to the complaint was then filed, "for the reason that the same does not allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action." This also was overruled. The defendant then answered, admitting:
"That on or about August 26, 1918, the plaintiff proposed to defendant and offered to transport the pupils of the defendant school district to and from school of said district during the school year of 1918 and 1919 for the the sum of ninety-five ($95) dollars per month, and the defendant accepted said offer and proposal under the conditions as hereinafter stated in the further and separate answer and not otherwise."
The closing of the school from October 14, 1918, to February 10 1919, the payment of $95 to the plaintiff for the first month's service by him, and the rejection of his claim of $380 are also admitted.
As a further and separate answer the defendant alleges that about August 26, 1918, the plaintiff proposed and offered to transport pupils "to and from the school of said district during the school year of 1918-19, for the sum of $95 per month, and the defendant accepted said offer and proposal." It is next averred that the contract was entered into with the understanding that the school would open about September 16th, and would continue in session, in the usual and ordinary course, for the entire school year, and that it "would not be suspended or interrupted by extraordinary casualty, operation of law, orders or directions from authorities of the state or federal government, or other causes, over which neither party had control and for which neither party was responsible." It is averred that about October 1, 1918, there was a dangerous epidemic of influenza in the school district and in Tillamook county, which continued until about February 10, 1919:
Then follows a copy of the above order of the Surgeon General. This letter is signed by Robert E. L. Holt, acting state health officer. The answer further alleges:
The plaintiff demurred to the further and separate answer "for the reason that the same does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense." This was sustained by the court. The defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Portland v. Bartlett
...should expect a clearer statement of legislative intent in the text of ORS 192.390 before so concluding.5 Cf. Crane v. School District No. 14 , 95 Or. 644, 654, 188 P. 712 (1920) ("If it had been the intent of the legislature to confer such a vast power * * *, it should have used language f......
-
West Los Angeles Institute for Cancer Research v. Mayer
...105 Or. 12, 207 P. 179, 183 (1922); and Elmore v. Stephens-Russell Co., 88 Or. 509, 171 P. 763 (1918). But see Crane v. School Dist. No. 14, 95 Or. 644, 188 P. 712 (1920).4 The Institute argues that rescission of the contract on this ground would be improper for a number of First. The Insti......
-
Voyt v. Bekins Moving & Storage
...P. (2d) 1101, 56 P. (2d) 1141 (1936); Scandinavian-American Bk. v. Lumber Co., 101 Or. 151, 199 P. 624 (1921); Crane v. School District, 95 Or. 644, at 651, 188 P. 712 (1920); Stanchfield Warehouse Co. v. Central R. of Oregon, 67 Or. 396, 400, 136 P. 34 (1913); Olds v. Cary, 13 Or. 362, 10 ......
-
Voyt v. Bekins Moving & Storage Co.
... ... from Circuit Court, Multnomah County; Arlie G. Walker, Judge ... 151, 199 P. 624; ... Crane v. School District, 1920, 95 Or. 644, at page ... 527, 93 P. 465, 468, 14 L.R.A.,N.S., 668, the plaintiff ... shipper ... ...