Crawford v. Hutchinson

• Decision Date: 10 June 1901
• Parties: CRAWFORD v. HUTCHINSON et al.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

65 P. 84

38 Or. 578

CRAWFORD v. HUTCHINSON et al.

Supreme Court of Oregon

June 10, 1901

Appeal from circuit court, Union county; Robert Eakin, Judge.

Action by T.H. Crawford against James H. Hutchinson and others. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

This is an action upon an account stated. The facts are that some time prior to December 14, 1899, the plaintiff, a practicing attorney at Union, had been retained and employed in his professional capacity by the defendants, who reside in the same town. On the date mentioned he made out and forwarded to them by mail the following statement of his account:

"Union, Oregon, December 14th, 1899.

"Hutchinson Bros., to T.H. Crawford
To attorney fee foreclosure suit H. Bros. v. Shelton Phy, et als	$ 500 00
To attorney fee H. Bros. v. Shelton	150 00
To attorney fee Albert H. v. H. Bros....................................	100 00
To attorney fees Donation Land Contest .................................	250 00
To attorney fees Foster, Brown & Co. v. H. Bros..........................	50 00
To attorney fees Baker Co. v. J.H.H......................................	50 00
To drawing lease for mill ................................................	2 50
To drawing deed for light plant ..........................................	2 50
To drawing contract with Phy .............................................	2 50
To attorney fees H. Bros. v. Ellis ......................................	50 00
To attorney fees J.H.H. v. Shelton foreclosure .........................	100 00
To attorney fees Corbett v. J.H.H........................................	50 00
To attorney fees H. Bros. v. Cellier ....................................	75 00
To attorney fees Schneider v. J.H.H., both in circuit and supreme court ................................................................	200 00
To attorney fees H. Bros. v. Gorham & Bro...............................	150 00
	---------
Total ............................................................	$1,731 50
	---------
	---------
Contra.
By J.F. Phy note ...........................	$ 291 00
By order on J.F. Phy .........................	200 00
By cash on land contest .......................	20 00
By amount realized on Cellier judgment .......	650 00
By amount realized on Schneider judgment .....	100 00
	---------
Total ..................................	$1,261 00
Balance due ...............................	470 50
	---------
	$1,731 50

"Your account for hay furnished is not included in the above, as I have been unable to get a statement of the amount. I desire to go below about next Monday, and would like very much if you can call and let us settle matters up before I go.

"Yours, very truly, T.H. Crawford."

Although the defendants received this statement a day or two after it was mailed, and frequently thereafter met the plaintiff, and had more or less conversation with him on business and other matters, and, in one or two instances at least, discussed the alleged balance due, and its payment, they made no objection to the account, or any item thereof. This action was commenced on the 20th day of September, 1900. The complaint is in the form usual in an action on an account stated. The answer, after denying the allegations of the complaint, affirmatively alleges that for some time prior to the 14th day of December, 1899, plaintiff and defendants had an open, mutual, and current account, and that there has never been any settlement or accounting between them. The trial court held that, owing to the failure of the defendants to object to the account as rendered by the plaintiff, it became an account stated, and directed a verdict for the plaintiff. From the judgment which followed, the defendants appeal.

Leroy Lomax, for appellants.

C.E Cochran and F.S. Ivanhoe, for responden...