Pearson v. Oregon-Washington R. & Nav. Co.

• Citation: 295 P. 201,135 Or. 336
• Parties: PEARSON v. OREGON-WASHINGTON R. & NAV. CO. [a1]
• Decision Date: 20 January 1931
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

295 P. 201

135 Or. 336

PEARSON v. OREGON-WASHINGTON R. & NAV. CO. ^[a1]

Supreme Court of Oregon

January 20, 1931

Department 2.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County; Robert Tucker, Judge.

Action by E. A. Pearson against the Oregon-Washington Railroad &amp Navigation Company. A referee was appointed and his report in favor of defendant adopted by the court. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

This action is predicated upon an alleged contract between plaintiff and the defendant corporation for the payment of compensation which the plaintiff asserts is due him for furnishing a device and invention for keeping the defendant's Steel Bridge over the Willamette river at Portland open to traffic and navigation while the draw was undergoing repairs.

It appears that, in the year 1922, the machinery by which the drawbridge was operated had become worn, necessitating repairs to the same; and the plaintiff alleges that the defendant thereupon began arrangements for making such repairs, whereby the bridge would be closed to all traffic for a period of four months, the estimated time required for the work, with a resultant loss to the defendant of the sum of $6,500 per month which defendant was receiving as rental from the city of Portland and the street car company for the use of the bridge, and other rentals and income from railroad companies and other persons aggregating $45,500 per month. In addition, the estimated cost of the false work and scaffolding necessary to make the needed repairs in accordance with defendant's plan was approximately $60,000. Plaintiff further alleges that, in the spring of 1922, he offered to furnish to the defendant a plan of his own invention for doing the repair work, which would obviate the necessity of closing the bridge to traffic or navigation at any time, provided the defendant would pay him "the reasonable value of said plan and invention figured on the basis of the money saved and earned by the said corporation by the use of the said plan during the period of four months when the bridge would ordinarily be closed to all use according to the ordinary manner of making the said repairs"; that the defendant accepted his offer, and the work proceeded under his plan and device, the necessary repairs were made, and the bridge was kept open for all uses at all times during the progress of the work.

The defendant, by answer, denies the making of the alleged contract, and asserts that at the time the draw was repaired the plaintiff was, and for many years prior thereto had been employed by the defendant as a draftsman in the office of its engineering department; that, during all the time occupied in making the repairs he received a salary of $210 per month for his services to the defendant; and that in the performance of his duty he was required to make all plans which might be needed by the engineers in charge of the construction of the draw.

After the joinder of issue, the defendant moved the court for an order directing a reference of the cause for trial, the motion being based upon the pleadings, and upon the affidavit of Roy F. Shields in which affiant stated, in part, that a determination of the question would require an examination and analysis of long and complicated accounts for the following reasons: That the bridge in question was owned by the defendant and the Southern Pacific Company jointly; that in accordance with a contract bearing date June 15, 1920, the upper deck of the bridge was leased to Multnomah county at an annual rental, and, by a supplemental contract of date December 19, 1923, further areas were likewise leased by the owners to Multnomah county as approaches to the bridge at a fixed annual rental; that the lower deck of the bridge was used jointly by the owning companies and Spokane-Portland &amp Seattle Railway Company as lessee; that, "as between the owning companies, the expenses of additions and betterments to said bridge are borne jointly by the defendant and Southern Pacific Company, while the cost of operation and maintenance of said bridge (including all expenses for preserving the integrity of the structure) is divided between defendant and Southern Pacific Company in the proportion which the number of cars which each of said companies runs across the bridge bears to the whole number of cars run across the bridge by both parties." Then follows a statement of the annual rentals due from the Spokane Portland & Seattle Railway Company to the owning companies. Affiant further said:

"To determine what, if any, sum the defendant earned or saved by keeping said bridge open to traffic during that particular period requires the determination, first, of the amount of gross revenue it received during said period, and, second, the amount of expense in maintenance and operation which the defendant would have saved had said bridge not been operated during said period. * * *

"To sustain their representative contentions, each side will offer in evidence numerous sets of drawings, plans and work sheets, with figures and computations thereon, all of which must be examined, compared and understood by the triers of the facts in order to determine this phase of the issues between the parties, and this cannot be done intelligently by a jury."

Over plaintiff's objection a referee was appointed, who took the testimony, determined the facts, and filed his report in which he found for the defendant. This report was adopted by the court, and it was ordered that plaintiff take...