Kornbrodt v. Equitable Trust Co.
| Decision Date | 22 September 1931 |
| Citation | 3 P.2d 127,137 Or. 386 |
| Parties | KORNBRODT v. EQUITABLE TRUST CO. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Department 1.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County; John H. Stevenson Judge.
On petition for rehearing.
Petition denied.
For former opinion, see 2 P.2d 236.
Geo. B. Guthrie and P.J. Gallagher, both of Portland, for appellant.
Trayle & Wharfield, of Portland, for respondent.
In a petition for rehearing filed herein, plaintiff contends that since the rule is that a promise to forbear may be inferred from the fact of forbearance, as held in First National Bank v. Cecil, 23 Or. 58, 31 P. 61,, 32 P. 393, there could have been no necessity for plaintiff, in stating his cause of action, to allege a promise upon his part to forbear. The rule that such a promise may be inferred from the fact of forbearance, where the question is in dispute, is a rule of evidence and not of pleading. This was an action for breach of contract, and before an action of that character will lie it must appear from the complaint that there was a valid and enforceable contract in existence between the parties and that the defendant has breached the contract. A promise by one party is a good consideration for a promise by another, but in such case the promise must be obligatory upon both parties so that each party will be bound. There must be a consideration for every contract, and unless the contract is one which imports a consideration such as a deed, bill of exchange, negotiable promissory note or other like instrument, the consideration must be proved, and consequently it should be stated. Bliss on Code Pleading, § 268.
In the instant case, plaintiff, instead of alleging that he accepted the offer alleged to have been made by defendant and made the promise requested, merely alleged that he did the thing which defendant requested him to do, namely, to forbear the doing of certain acts. So far as the allegations of the complaint are concerned, plaintiff may have refused to accept the offer made and subsequently, on his own volition and for reasons not stated, complied with the request and forbore to do the thing which had been requested and refused. In such case, neither party would be bound to perform. This falls far short of constituting a contract or of stating any consideration upon which any valid contract could be based.
In holding that, because of plaintiff's failure to allege his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oregon Farm Bureau v. Thompson
...to understand how the trial judge could discover what the situation was. Kornbrodt v. Equitable Trust Co., 137 Or. 386, 2 P.2d 236, 3 P.2d 127, quoted approvingly the 'Such pleading is bad under any system of practice when it states material facts in the alternative, so that it is impossibl......
-
Clubb v. Hanson
...that alternative pleading is improper, at least as a general rule, citing Kornbrodt v. Equitable Trust Co., 137 Or. 386, 2 P.2d 236, 3 P.2d 127 (1931), and Oregon Farm Bureau v. Thompson, 235 Or. 162, 378 P.2d 563, 384 P.2d 182 (1963), and that this case does not present the 'rare circumsta......
-
Moyer v. Columbia State Bank
...Moro v. State of Oregon , 357 Or. 167, 196, 351 P.3d 1 (2015). A plaintiff must plead consideration. See Kornbrodt v. Equitable Trust Co. , 137 Or. 386, 392, 3 P.2d 127 (1931) (stating that "consideration must be proved, and consequently it should be stated"). "A claim will survive a motion......
-
Persons, Adm'R. v. Raven and Weyerhaeuser Timber Co.
...the circumstances indicate that the parties intended to be bound by the law. Kornbrodt v. Equitable Trust Co., 137 Or. 386, 2 P.2d 236, 3 P.2d 127. A strained construction, imputing an intention to violate the law, should be avoided. 20 Am. Jur., Evidence, section 7-9. Plaintiff seeks to ta......