Fisk v. Henarie

CourtSupreme Court of Oregon
Writing for the CourtTHAYER, J.
Citation13 Or. 156,9 P. 322
PartiesFISK v. HENARIE and others.
Decision Date11 January 1886

9 P. 322

13 Or. 156

HENARIE and others.

Supreme Court of Oregon

January 11, 1886

[13 Or. 157] Geo. H. Williams and Wallace Mount, for appellant.

[13 Or. 158] James K. Kelly and Arthur L. Frazer, for respondents.


The appellant commenced an action in the court below against the respondents to recover the [13 Or. 159] sum of $60,000, commissions [9 P. 323] alleged to have been earned in procuring a purchaser of lands owned by respondents, situated in the counties of Wasco, Grant, and Baker, in this state, consisting of a tract of 600,000 acres, and known as "The Dalles Military Road Company's Land Grant." He alleged in his complaint in said action that on and prior to October 1, 1881, D.V.B. Henarie, Eleanor Martin, James V. Martin, Genevieve Martin, Peter D. Martin, Walter S. Martin, Andrew D. Martin, Thomas S. Martin, Edward Martin, S.A. Francis, and M. Wilcox, wife of J.D. Wilcox, were the owners of said tract of land, and that in December, 1880, they, said owners, made a contract with him that, if he would procure a purchaser for said lands at the rate of one dollar per acre, he should receive as a compensation therefor the sum of 10 per cent. of said purchase price; that he did procure Leigh, Payne & Co., of Chicago, Illinois, as purchasers, who were accepted as such, and that a contract was entered into October 1, 1881, in which it was agreed that said Leigh, Payne & Co. would take the said lands, and pay therefor the sum of $600,000; that thereafter, the respondents becoming the owners of said lands, the said agreement of October 1, 1881, was modified on the nineteenth day of September, 1882, by the execution of a new agreement between the said Leigh, Payne & Co. and the respondents, whereby the said company agreed to pay for the said lands the said sum of $615,000, on terms satisfactory to the respondents; that for reasons unknown to the appellant the sale was not consummated, whereupon the appellant, about January or February, 1883, procured one Robert Bell, banker, of the city of Portland, Oregon, to make respondents a proposition to purchase said lands upon the terms and conditions specified in said agreement with said Leigh, Payne & Co., and, as an inducement to said respondents to accept him, said Bell, as such [13 Or. 160] purchaser, he offered to pay said respondents $10,000 of the purchase price cash down, upon the execution of an agreement with him by them for the sale of said property, which the appellant alleged were more favorable terms than those contained in the former modified agreement; that the said Bell was then, and ever since had been, able, and was then ready and willing, to purchase said property upon the terms proposed by him; that the respondents Wilcox, Edward Martin, and Thomas S. Martin, who lived in Oregon, were willing to accept the offer of said Bell to purchase said property, but that said Henarie, Donohue, and Eleanor Martin, who resided in San Francisco, declined it for no other reason, as appellant alleged upon his information and belief, than because they were induced to believe, by outside parties, that they could obtain a higher price for said land; that he was fully authorized to contract for the sale of said property on the terms specified in said agreement with said Leigh, Payne & Co., and under such authority he procured for such owners a purchaser therefor in the said Robert Bell, in addition to the procurement of said Leigh, Payne & Co. as such purchasers; and that he performed on his part all things necessary and proper [9 P. 324] to enable said respondents to sell said property upon the terms and conditions which they prescribed for its sale, and that said respondents wrongfully and willfully, and without any good reason or just cause, refused to sell said property after appellant had procured purchasers therefor as aforesaid, and wholly neglected and refused to perform their said contract with appellant, and still refuse so to do, and that the sale of said property was not completed on account of the refusal and neglect of respondents to perform upon their part. The respondents in their answer denied that any such contract as alleged was ever made by them or either of [13 Or. 161] them; that, on the contrary, some of the respondents made a parol agreement with the appellant that if he would procure a purchaser for said lands at the price of $600,000, who would pay for the same cash, or part in cash, and part in satisfactory securities, he should be entitled to receive a pro rata portion of said cash, or of said cash and securities, at the time when the same were received, of 10 per cent. of the amount or security so received, as a commission, payable exclusively out of the same, provided that such purchaser would pay, at the time of agreeing to purchase the property, such sum of money, as a prepayment to bind the bargain, as would be satisfactory for that purpose to said owners. Admitted that said Leigh, Payne & Co., on the fourth day of October, 1881, entered into an agreement with some of the respondents, (but not with said Donohue, who then had no interest in the said lands,) whereby the said Leigh, Payne & Co. would purchase and pay for said property $600,000, portions of which were to be paid at stated times until the whole amount of $600,000 was paid, when the property should be conveyed to them; that Leigh, Payne & Co. failed to pay any part of the $600,000, or perform any of the conditions of their agreement; that the said modified contract was entered into between respondents, including Peter Donohue, and said Leigh, Payne & Co., wherein the latter company agreed to pay respondents said $615,000, at certain times mentioned in the contract, which they wholly failed to do; that the appellant induced the respondents to enter into the contract, knowing at the time that said Leigh, Payne & Co. were unable to purchase and pay for the property; that appellant himself was interested as a partner with said Leigh, Payne & Co. in said purchase, and was to share in the profits that might be made by said firm, in case they could sell or dispose of the said property, at a [13 Or. 162] profit, to any other person or persons; and that the said parol contract was made in the state of California, where the respondents then and ever since have resided; and that by the law of said state a parol agreement in such case was void unless the same, or some note or memorandum thereof, be in writing. The appellant replied to the new matter of defense set forth in answer, denying all the material allegations thereof. The issues so made came on for trial before said court and a jury duly impaneled. The appellant on said trial offered in evidence and read to the jury portions of a deposition of said D.V.B. Henarie, which had [9 P. 325] theretofore been taken in the case upon the part of the respondents. Among other interrogatories and answers of said witness read to the jury were the following:

"Interrogatory 5. Did you, in connection with any other persons, ever make an agreement by which you employed the plaintiff, James H. Fisk, to act as your agent or broker to sell lands? If you did so employ him, when was that contract made? Where was it made? And who all were parties to it Answer. I never did, either by myself or in connection with any other persons, employ plaintiff. I merely gave to him the price at which I and other

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Smith v. Durant
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • April 1, 1975 Page 963 155, 9 P. at 399) to the interests of 'liberality allowed on cross-examination, to promote the ends of justice' it was held (13 Or. at 156, 9 P. at 399) that the trial court, in its discretion, 'may exclude Such questions, or allow them, as the ends of justice may seem to requir......
  • Allen v. Hendrick
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • April 25, 1922
    ...parties to it, so that the court can be placed in the position of him whose language is to be interpreted. See 717 Or. L.; Fisk v. Henarie, 13 Or. 156, 171, 9 P. 322; Jasper v. Jasper, 17 Or. 590, 594, 22 P. 152; Salem King's Products Co. v. Ramp, 100 Or. 329, 356, 196 P. 401. The language ......
  • Durkee v. Carr
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • December 31, 1900
    ...fact relied upon is not so specific as it might have been, any defect therein was undoubtedly cured by answering thereto. Fisk v. Henarie, 13 Or. 156, 9 P. 322. In consequence of the error of the court in admitting the lease in evidence and in giving the instruction complained of, the judgm......
  • Fisk v. Henarie
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • January 4, 1892
    ...defendants, on which there was a judgment for costs in their favor; which judgment was on January 11, 1886, reversed by the supreme court, (13 Or. 156, 9 Pac. Rep. 322,) and a new trial ordered, which, being had, resulted, May 21, 1886, in a verdict for the plaintiff for the sum of $60,000.......
  • 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