Daniels v. Parker
| Decision Date | 06 February 1957 |
| Citation | 209 Or. 419,306 P.2d 735 |
| Parties | Albert DANIELS, Respondent, v. Ralph PARKER, Richard H. Parker and Phillip L. Fields, co-partners d/b/a United Finance Co., Appellants. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Harold B. Hutchinson, Cake, Jaureguy & Hardy, Portland, for appellants.
Maxwell Donnelly, Portland, for respondent.
This is an action for money had and received by the plaintiff, Albert Daniels, against the defendants, Ralph Parker, Richard H. Parker and Phillip L. Fields, co-partners doing business under the firm name of United Finance Co. The case was tried to the court without a jury and resulted in a judgment for plaintiff for $1,150, from which defendants appeal.
The facts were stipulated by the parties and found by the court as follows: that on or about May 26, 1949, plaintiff entered into a conditional sales contract to purchase from Frazier Motor Company a 1949 Chevrolet automobile and to pay $1,925.52 due under said contract in 24 monthly installments of $80.23 each; that on or about May 27, 1949, Frazier Motor Company for a valuable consideration assigned all of its right, title and interest in said conditional sales contract and in the 1949 Chevrolet automobile securing the same to the defendants, who purchased the same in good faith, without any notice of any defect in the title to said automobile; that between May 27, 1949 and September 26, 1950, plaintiff paid to defendants the sum of $1,925.52 due under said conditional sales contract and defendants marked said contract 'Paid' and surrendered it to the plaintiff together with the certificate of title to said Chevrolet automobile; that plaintiff thereafter resold said automobile to an innocent purchaser for the sum of $1,150 and warranted his title thereto; that on or about February 5, 1953, said automobile was repossessed from plaintiff's purchaser by the true owner who proved that said automobile had been stolen some time prior to its purchase by plaintiff and that neither Frazier Motor Company nor any successor to its interest ever held the true title thereto; that as a result of said repossession, plaintiff became liable to said purchaser for a breach of warranty and was required to and did pay to said purchaser on February 20, 1953, the sum of $1,150; that plaintiff has made demand upon the defendants for the sum of $1,150 which defendants have refused to pay; that prior to any demand by plaintiff upon these defendants, Frazier Motor Company became insolvent and was insolvent at the time of trial; and that there is no evidence of bad faith on the part of either the plaintiff or the defendants.
This being an action for money had and received, it is governed by equitable principles. Smith v. Rubel, 140 Or. 422, 13 P.2d 1078, 87 A.L.R. 644. Within such principles, we are required to determine which of the innocent parties must bear the loss resulting from the above facts.
We believe that this case falls within the rule stated in Restatement of Restitution, 55 § 14(2) as follows:
'An assignee of a non-negotiable chose in action who, having paid value therefor, has received payment from the obligor is under no duty to make restitution although the obligor had a defense thereto, if the transferee made no misrepresentation and did not have notice of the defense.'
Comment (a) on Section 14 states that the above rule 'is a specific...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Senn v. Manchester Bank of St. Louis
...contract does not cast upon the assignee any of the personal liabilities imposed by the contract upon the assignor. Daniels v. Parker, 209 Or. 419, 306 P.2d 735 (1957). However, under certain circumstances, an assignee has been held to have impliedly assumed the contractual obligation of th......
-
Value Linx Servs., LLC v. Linx Card, Inc.
...Reply Defendants rely on cases that hold assignees of contractual rights are not liable under that contract. See Daniels v. Parker, 209 Or. 419, 422-23, 306 P.2d 735 (1957); Cascade Shopping Ctr. v. United Grocers, Inc., 106 Or. App. 428, 432, 808 P.2d 720 (1991)("As a matter of general con......
-
Adamson v. West Valley Associates, Inc.
...found that defendant had actual knowledge of and assumed the Contractual obligations of the sellers, Fuls. See Daniels v. Parker et al, 209 Or. 419, 422--23, 306 P.2d 735 (1957). Even if we assume that plaintiffs held nothing more than a '* * * its revocation may constitute a breach of cont......
-
First State Bank of Or. v. Peoples Nat. Bank of Wash.
...peculiar to negotiable instruments is involved and there is no reason to apply law peculiar to negotiable instruments. Daniels v. Parker, 209 Or. 419, 306 P.2d 735 (1957), however, applied the rationale of First National Bank v. Noble, supra, 179 Or. 26, 168 P.2d 354, to facts not involving......