Rohr v. Baker
Decision Date | 12 April 1886 |
Citation | 10 P. 627,13 Or. 350 |
Parties | ROHR v. BAKER. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
The parties in this action were several street contractors with the city of Portland for excavating earth. Rohr, by mistake and without Baker's knowledge, excavated a quantity of earth on ground covered by Baker's contract. Baker completed his contract, and received the contract price. Rohr brings this action to recover for the actual cost of the work done by him, and for which he claims Baker received the benefit.
Yocum & Beebe, for appellant.
Stott & Stott, for respondent.
"An agreement concerning things personal is a mutual assent of the parties." Plowd. 5. There may by circumstances from which a tacit assent may be inferred, but in every case this assent is a fact which must be proved. No man can make another his debtor against his will; as, if a man pay my debt without my request, I am not bound to repay him.
In Bixby v. Moor, 51 N.H. 403, the court say:
There is a class of so-called contracts, e.g., innkeepers and common carriers, which are not contracts at all. Poll.Cont 10; Hertzog v. Hertzog, 29 Pa.St. 465; 2 Kent, Comm (13th Ed.) 450, note 1. This is not a case of that class. Rohr must bring himself within the domain of actual contract. Now, Baker's contract was entire. He had property in it with which no man could interfere and claim any part of the contract price without his assent. Parsons says (1 Cont. 446:) "If the work or service rendered is merely gratuitous, and performed for the defendant without his request or privity, however meritorious or beneficent they may be, they afford no cause of action." Bartholomew v. Jackson, 20 Johns. 28, is cited in the note. The case, presented is that of a stranger doing work on Baker's contract without Baker's consent. The case, in principle, is the same as though he had plowed Baker's field, or done work on his house, under similar circumstances. See Davis v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Moss v. Winston
... ... well-defined legal meaning, and declared to signify a mutual ... assent of the parties to certain contract terms. Rohr v ... Baker, 13 Or. 350, 10 P. 627; Jones v ... Williams, 139 Mo. 1, 39 S.W. 486, 40 S.W. 353, 37 L.R.A ... 682, 61 Am.St.Rep. 436; Richardson ... ...
-
State ex rel. Bayer v. Funk
... ... which he subsequently expressly promised to pay. Nine v ... Starr, 8 Or. 49; Rohr v. Baker, 13 Or. 350, 10 ... P. 627; Glenn v. Savage, 14 Or. 567, 577, 13 P. 442; ... Forbis v. Inman, 23 Or. 68, 31 P. 204; Kiser ... ...
-
Phez Co. v. Salem Fruit Union
... ... 157; Washburn v. Interstate ... Invest. Co., 26 Or. 436, 36 P. 533, 38 P. 620; ... Parker v. Jeffery, 26 Or. 186, 37 P. 712; Rohr ... v. Baker, 13 Or. 350, 10 P. 627. The text of 13 C.J., ... from which the last statement of the rule is taken in ... substance, ... ...
-
Strong v. Hall
...circumstances from which a tacit assent may be inferred, but in every case this assent is a fact which must be proved.' Rohr v. Baker, 13 Or. 350, 351, 10 P. 627 (1886). In the absence of proof that the parties ever agreed on terms of a contract of sale, the plaintiffs were not entitled to ......