Fisk v. Henarie

CourtSupreme Court of Oregon
Writing for the Court[14 Or. 31] THAYER, J.
Citation13 P. 193,14 Or. 29
PartiesFISK v. HENARIE and others.
Decision Date20 October 1886

13 P. 193

14 Or. 29

HENARIE and others.

Supreme Court of Oregon

October 20, 1886

Appeal from circuit court, Multnomah county.

Action on contract. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appeals.

H.Y. Thompson, Geo. H. Durham, and Geo. H. Williams, for appellant.

[14 Or. 30] James K. Kelly and W.B. Gilbert, for respondents.

[14 Or. 31] THAYER, J.

The appellant commenced an action in the court below to recover $60,000, alleged to have been earned by him as a broker in procuring a purchaser of certain lands under a contract with certain of the respondents. The case has been twice tried in the lower court, and twice appealed to this court. Upon the first trial certain letters were offered in evidence by the appellant, which the circuit judge excluded, and which were claimed to establish the contract upon which the action was brought. Judgment having been rendered against the appellant therein, he brought an appeal to this court, and it was reversed, and the case remanded for a new trial. Upon said new trial the appellant obtained a verdict in his favor against the respondents. In entitling the verdict, the jury included the name of Peter Donohue, though he was dead at the time, and his executors had been made defendants in the action. Soon after the verdict was rendered the respondents filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and on the next day filed another motion for a new trial. The appellant, during the same time, filed a motion for judgment upon the verdict against all the defendants except the executors of said Peter Donohue. They were left out of the motion, for the reason, I presume, that the verdict was rendered against Donohue, and not against them, as before mentioned. The court [14 Or. 32] heard the said motions, and thereupon denied the motion for judgment upon the verdict, granted the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and said nothing about the one for a new trial. From the judgment notwithstanding the verdict this appeal was brought.

Among the grounds of error specified in the notice of appeal is "error of the court in refusing to allow the motion of the plaintiff for a judgment upon the verdict," and this review necessarily involves an examination as to the correctness of that ruling. The grounds upon which the circuit court granted the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict must have been a supposed defectiveness of the complaint. The counsel for the respondent endeavored at the hearing to show that it was entirely insufficient, and to uphold the decision of the court for that reason; but this court, at the former hearing before referred to, passed upon the sufficiency of this complaint, and held that it was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Wilson v. Blakeslee
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • February 2, 1888
    ...joint obligation, and he had no right to have any such judgment entered. The rule upon that subject was referred to in Fisk v. Henarie, 14 Or. 29, 13 P. 193, which is as follows: "In an action against several upon a joint obligation, where all the defendants have been served, judgment may b......
  • North Pacific Lumber Co. v. Spore
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • March 21, 1904
    ...42 Or. 24, 69 P. 919. And a joint judgment should have been rendered against the entire partnership. B. & C. Comp. § 61; Fisk v. Henarnie, 14 Or. 29, 13 P. 193; Wilson v. Blakeslee, 16 Or. 43, 16 P. 872; Thomas v. Barnes, 34 Or. 416, 56 P. 73. The judgment will therefore be set aside, and t......
  • Fisk v. Henarie
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • January 4, 1892
    ...was entered for costs in favor of the defendants, which judgment was on October 20, 1886, on writ of error, reversed by the supreme court, (14 Or. 29, 13 Pac. Rep. 193,) and the cause remanded for further proceedings according to law. On December 18, 1886, the circuit court allowed the moti......
  • Hewey v. Andrews
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • September 19, 1916
    ...returned February 16, 1916, against C. S. Andrews and Lillie M. Andrews, whose counsel, invoking the rule established in Fisk v. Henarie, 14 Or. 29, 13 P. 193, Wilson v. Blakeslee, 16 Or. 43, 16 P. 872, Thomas v. Barnes, 34 Or. 416, 56 P. 73, and North Pacific Lumber Co. v. Spore, 44 Or. 46......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT