Lueddemann v. Rudolf
| Citation | 79 Or. 249,155 P. 172 |
| Parties | LUEDDEMANN ET AL. v. RUDOLF. |
| Decision Date | 15 February 1916 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Oregon |
Department 1.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Lane County; G. F. Skipworth, Judge.
On petition for rehearing. Rehearing denied.
For former opinion, see 154 P. 116.
H. E. Slattery, of Eugene, for appellant. Jesse Stearns of Portland, and F. E. Smith, of Eugene, for respondents.
The original opinion in this case disposed of the issue on the ground that no acceptance of the defendant's offer was proven, and that nothing more than a counter proposition was disclosed. On the petition for rehearing we are concerned with the question of whether the letters between the parties introduced by the plaintiffs in evidence are sufficient within the terms of our statute of frauds to prove the contract upon which they rely. The amended complaint alleges in substance, that in March, 1914, the defendant in writing duly subscribed by him employed and authorized the plaintiffs to sell or exchange his wheat farm of 1,440 acres, regularly described by legal subdivisions, and agreed to pay them $1,000 as commission if they negotiated an exchange of his land for other property. Other averments of that pleading relate to acceptance by the plaintiffs of the employment their success in effecting a trade for other realty, and the refusal of the defendant to pay. The answer says:
"Except as hereinafter admitted, stated, or qualified, the defendant denies each and every allegation within the amended complaint of the plaintiffs contained."
This amounts to a complete traverse unless the new matter stated by the defendant makes a case for the plaintiff. The only averment by the defendant affecting the question under consideration is this:
"The defendant states that the only writing in any way existing by and between the parties hereto is the original of which Exhibit A hereto attached is a copy, and that the same does not meet the requirements of the statute of frauds, and for that reason the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover; that said Exhibit A is into this answer incorporated and made a part hereof as though fully set forth herein."
"Exhibit A" there mentioned is the letter of Rudolf to the plaintiffs, dated March 16, 1914, and quoted in the former opinion. The excerpt from the answer amounts to an affirmative plea of the statute of frauds, and does not excuse the plaintiffs from proving the allegations of their complaint.
It will not suffice to show even the greatest efforts to sell or even the accomplishment of such a purpose unless there is a contract to which such acts can be applied as performance on the part of the plaintiffs. Without a lawful agreement to support the same, no labor, however valuable, by one for another will make the person performing it more than a mere volunteer not legally entitled to compensation. Unless forbidden by positive statute, the courts have indeed gone far to imply from the circumstances of valuable service an agreement on the part of the recipient to pay for them. But, however morally deserving the plaintiffs may be, we cannot override the express mandate of the law in their interest and impose upon the defendant a liability which the legislative department of the government has explicitly said shall not exist unless it is evidenced in a certain prescribed manner.
The defendant's letter is quoted in full in the former opinion, but for brevity we here adopt the condensation of it appearing in the petition for rehearing:
It is upon this letter subscribed by the defendant whom they seek to charge that the plaintiffs rely to satisfy our statute of frauds in their endeavor to prove their complaint. Much other correspondence between the parties appears in the report of the testimony, but nothing signed by the defendant comes any wise nearer the requirements of the statute than this first letter. In plaintiffs' communication of April 6, 1914 they state they send him therewith a blank contract for his signature, and on April 18, 1914, they inquire when he is going to give them the contract, but no such document appears in the record. It would seem from this that the plaintiffs were conscious they had no contract with the defendant as contemplated by the law. On this point the bill of exceptions states that the plaintiffs informed the court at the trial that they relied upon the above letter and their answer to it, both of which are quoted in extenso in the original opinion, as constituting the agreement supporting their claim. In applying the statute to this letter it is well to recall as pointed out by Mr. Justice Benson in Taggart v. Hunter, 152 P. 871, after exhaustive research, that only eight other states have statutes declaring certain contracts void unless written in a prescribed form. Only in Alabama, Minnesota,...
To continue reading
Request your trial