Crawford v. Jackson
| Decision Date | 26 February 1969 |
| Citation | 451 P.2d 115,252 Or. 552 |
| Parties | John H. CRAWFORD, Appellant, v. Kenneth E. JACKSON, Respondent. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Johnson, Telfer & Sloan, Grants Pass, and Nicolas Ferrara, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
Donald F. Myrick and Donald C. Williams, Grants Pass, for respondent.
Before PERRY, C.J., and McALLISTER, SLOAN, O'CONNELL, GOODWIN, DENECKE, and LANGTRY, JJ.
Plaintiff's complaint stated three causes of action seeking money damages based upon plaintiff's alleged oral contract with the defendant for providing a crusher to process rock on defendant's property, and trucks to transport the rock to various jobs the defendant was supplying. Two counts related to the rock crushing itself, the third to hauling. The answer danied the material allegations plaintiff had made as to the content of the oral agreement, but agreed that defendant had paid certain sums plaintiff had alleged and that an additional credit should be allowed defendant by plaintiff. An affirmative defense alleged a different version of the oral agreement than that which had been alleged in the complaint by the plaintiff, and a counter-claim. The case was tried to a jury. The counter-claim was removed from consideration on plaintiff's motion at conclusion of the evidence. Plaintiff made no other motions. Conflicting evidence was produced both as to content of the oral agreement, and how it was performed. The jury's verdict was for the defendant.
Assignments of error are: (1) that the verdict is against the evidence; (2) that the verdict is against the law; and (3) that errors of law occurred in rulings on evidence and in jury instructions. The testimony discloses a decided conflict as to what the oral arrangement was that the parties made. There were very poor records kept relating to performance. In a long, rambling brief, plaintiff's counsel contends that this conflicting evidence can lead to but one conclusion--that plaintiff's contentions are correct. Plaintiff's counsel urges this court to substitute its judgment on the facts for that of the jury and 'direct' a decision for plaintiff in the sum of $7,140.45. He says that if the court finds that certain fill dirt and waste rock taken by the plaintiff for his own use should be credited as an offset on this, the court should also do that. Thus, by his own statements, counsel admits that the dispute involves controverted facts. He cannot ask the court, under the law of Oregon, to substitute its judgment for that of a jury on substantial controverted facts. Oregon Constitution, Art. VII, § 3; Godell v. Johnson, 250 Or. 496, 443 P.2d 203 (1968). This is particularly true in a case where, as here, he has submitted his case to the jury without objection or exception.
The second assignment of error is that the verdict was against the law. Counsel's argument on this assignment is not very illuminating as to what he means, but it appears that he claims the court should have taken the case from the jury, for he says 'the interpretation of the greement in question is essentially a judicial function, even though it involves...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bakker v. Baza'r, Inc.
...3434, 3435--36, 273 Or. 358, 540 P.2d 1406 (1975); Wood Ind'l Corp. v. Rose, 271 Or. 103, 530 P.2d 1245 (1975); Crawford v. Jackson, 252 Or. 552, 451 P.2d 115 (1969). However, we also note that on at least two previous occasions defendant employers have been allowed to raise the exclusive r......
-
State v. Cervantes
...to blame the court for what he has himself done, and, by doing so get a second opportunity to try his case." Crawford v. Jackson, 252 Or. 552, 555, 451 P.2d 115 (1969). At the core of the principle is the understanding that a party cannot take on appeal "a position inconsistent with that wh......
-
Ossanna v. Nike, Inc.
...or strategic trial choices do not later ‘blame the court’ if those choices prove to be unwise." Id . (quoting Crawford v. Jackson , 252 Or. 552, 555, 451 P.2d 115 (1969) ). In the context of instructional error, a party may invite error by acquiescing to an instruction given by the trial co......
-
Hansen v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Benton Cnty.
...or strategic trial choices do not later ‘blame the court’ if those choices prove to be unwise.” Id. (quoting Crawford v. Jackson , 252 Or. 552, 555, 451 P.2d 115 (1969) ).Petitioners expressly requested that the trial court remand the vested right decision to the county. The trial court acc......