Nye v. Bill Nye Gold Min. & Mill. Co.

• Decision Date: 06 April 1903
• Citation: 42 Or. 560,71 P. 1043
• Parties: NYE v. BILL NYE GOLD MIN. & MILL. CO.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

71 P. 1043

42 Or. 560

NYE v. BILL NYE GOLD MIN. & MILL. CO.

Supreme Court of Oregon

April 6, 1903

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; H.K. Hanna, Judge.

Action by N.B. Nye against the Bill Nye Gold Mining & Milling Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

The complaint herein, after the formal recitals, further sets out "that on or about the 1st day of September, A.D.1900 the plaintiff, at the instance and request of the defendant entered into the employment of defendant as foreman of the mining property belonging to said defendant, situated and located near the town of Gold Hill, Jackson county, Oregon that a reasonable compensation for said employment for the said period of one year is the sum of seventy-five dollars per month, or a total of nine hundred dollars"; and "that no part of said sum of $900 has been paid," etc. The answer consists of specific denials of these allegations. Upon the issues thus formulated, a trial was had before the court, which found, among other things, "that between said date [September 1, 1900] and October, 1901 plaintiff did and performed twelve months' service for said defendant as such foreman"; the other findings of fact conforming closely to the allegations of the complaint. Notwithstanding such findings, the defendant interposed a motion for judgment in its favor, which being overruled, and judgment having been rendered upon the findings, the defendant appeals.

A.M. Cannon, for appellant.

A.S. Hammond, for respondent.

WOLVERTON J. (after stating the facts).

The motion for judgment non obstante presents the question whether the complaint, aided by all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the facts stated, is sufficient; that is to say, are the allegations thereof of such a nature and scope as to comprehend all the elements and essentials going to make up a good cause of action? If so, however defectively stated the cause may be, it will be presumed that the proofs have established every such essential, and therefore that the verdict or finding supplies that which is lacking, or goes to the aid of the statement, and judgment should be entered accordingly. If, upon the other hand, there is a statement of a defective or bad title or cause, or there is lacking some material or essential allegation to establish a good cause there can be no aider. The principle has been so often announced by this court that further elaboration is unnecessary. Weiner v. Lee Shing, 12 Or. 276, 7 P. 111; Booth v. Moody, 30 Or. 222, 46 P. 884; Foste v. Insurance Co., 34 Or. 125, 54 P. 811; Wright v. Ramp, 41 Or. 285, 68 P. 731. The...