Henderson v. Reynolds

• Decision Date: 27 September 1910
• Citation: 57 Or. 186,110 P. 979
• Parties: HENDERSON v. REYNOLDS.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

110 P. 979

57 Or. 186

HENDERSON v. REYNOLDS.

Supreme Court of Oregon

September 27, 1910

Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County; W.N. Gatens, Judge.

Action by William A. Henderson against H.R. Reynolds. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed, and new trial ordered.

Of the two causes of action set forth, only the second is involved herein, and the complaint, referring thereto, states in effect that about November 10, 1907, the plaintiff, at the special instance and request of the defendant, negotiated and effected for him the sale of a bond of the Realty Associates of Portland, Or., for $10,000, which sum was paid by the purchaser to the defendant, who, in consideration of the services so performed by the plaintiff, promised to pay him $333.33, but upon a request therefor neglected to discharge any part thereof. The answer denies that plaintiff consummated the sale of any bond, but admits that he introduced a person to the defendant to whom the latter sold certificates of indebtedness amounting to $16,000. For a further defense it is alleged, in substance, that the parties hereto thereafter had an accounting and settlement of all their dealings, whereupon it was agreed that plaintiff should receive for all his services so performed $400, which sum had been paid to him by the defendant. The reply put in issue the allegations of new matter in the answer, and, the cause having been tried without the intervention of a jury, the court found from the testimony received the following facts "That the allegations contained in the second cause of action as contained in plaintiff's complaint are true and that defendant is indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $333.33." As a conclusion of law deducible therefrom the court found as follows: "That as to the second cause of action stated in plaintiff's complaint plaintiff is entitled to a judgment against defendant for the sum of $333.33, together with his costs and disbursements herein." A judgment having been rendered in accordance with such findings, the defendant appeals.

E.B Seabrook, for appellant.

H. Daniel, for respondent.

MOORE C.J. (after stating the facts as above).

It is contended that the findings made by the court do not support the judgment, and, such being the case, an error was committed in awarding a recovery against the defendant. The rule is settled in this state that, when a cause is tried without the interposition of a jury, the findings of fact made by the court must be as extensive as, and include, all the material issues involved. Drainage District v Crow, 20...