Mackey v. Olssen
Decision Date | 21 October 1885 |
Citation | 8 P. 357,12 Or. 429 |
Parties | MACKEY and another v. OLSSEN. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Appeal from Benton county.
John Burnett and John Kelsay, for appellant.
R.S Strahan and J.R. Baldwin, for respondents.
This is an action for damages, based upon the breach of a written contract for the sale of standing timber, in which it is alleged, as the essential part of such contract, It is further alleged that the market value of the timber is six cents per foot. In his answer the defendant denies this allegation, and alleges that the market value was not greater than the contract price, etc. Issue being joined, a trial was had, which resulted in a verdict for the plaintiffs. The defendant appeals, and assigns, among other grounds of error, as appears by the bill of exceptions, that the court erred in allowing the plaintiffs to prove the costs of constructing a road to get the standing timber mentioned in the complaint, for the reason, principally, that the measure of damages applicable to the case is the difference between the contract price and the market value of the timber standing. The defendant claims that the plaintiffs have no more right to make him pay for making the road to the timber than if they had gotten all the timber for which the contract provided, and then sued him for the cost of making the road to get it. Now it will be admitted that if the contract had been fully performed and completed, the road must have been left on the land, and no charge could be made for the expenses of constructing it. By their verdict for damages plaintiffs have got all the timber for which the contract provided, and the road is left on the land the same as if the contract had been performed, as indicated by the issue and the instructions of the court. The difference between the contract price and the market value of the timber...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wieber v. Fedex Ground Package System
...and we may affirm the judgment on condition that plaintiffs remit from the judgment the amount of [excess] damages."); Mackey v. Olssen, 12 Or. 429, 430, 8 P. 357 (1885) (holding that when the resulting from a trial court's error can be segregated from the amount of the verdict based on the......
-
Graham v. Merchant
...such facts, the court may remand the cause, with directions to enter a particular judgment, or send it back for a new trial. Mackey v. Olssen, 12 Or. 429, 8 P. 357; Merchants' National Bank v. Pope, 19 Or. 35, P. 622; Nodine v. Shirley, 24 Or. 250, 33 P. 379; Grant v. Paddock, 30 Or. 312, 4......
-
Crahane v. Swan
...Co., 1935, 149 Or. 396, 407, 41 P.2d 249; Reddick v. Magel, 1948, 184 Or. 270, 279, 195 P.2d 713, 197 P.2d 683. Also see Mackey v. Olssen, 12 Or. 429, 8 P. 357. The defendant cites no Oregon cases to the contrary, nor can we discover any after diligent The rationale for the rule as used in ......
-
Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Wehrman
...granted, unless plaintiff refuses to remit the excessive part of the verdict. Ibers et al. v. O'Donnell, 25 Mo.App. 120; Mackey v. Olssen, 12 Or. 429, 8 P. 357; Hazard Powder Co. v. Volger, 58 F. 152, 7 C. C. 130. The verdict was for $970, which was afterwards remitted to $960, with interes......