Short v. Rogue River Irrigation & Power Co.
Citation | 162 P. 845,82 Or. 662 |
Parties | SHORT ET AL. v. ROGUE RIVER IRRIGATION & POWER CO. ET AL. |
Decision Date | 30 January 1917 |
Court | Supreme Court of Oregon |
In Banc.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Josephine County; F. M. Calkins, Judge.
Action by Maggie E. Short and another against the Rogue River Irrigation & Power Company, W. B. Sherman, and others. From a decree for plaintiffs, defendant Sherman appeals. Modified and affirmed.
This is a suit to quiet adverse claims to real property and to annul and cancel a certain selling contract made between the plaintiffs and the defendant Sherman. The contract is set up in the complaint, and its essential provisions are as follows: The land included in the contract was the whole of section 20, township 35 south, range 6 west, Willamette Meridian, in Josephine county, with the exception of certain lots and tracts not necessary to be enumerated here. By the terms of the agreement, Sherman was authorized to negotiate sales according to a schedule agreed upon by the parties until June 8, 1911. He was within 15 days from the date of the contract to start an active campaign for the sale of the lands in lots and tracts, surveying, platting, and advertising and selling the property at his own expense in such manner as to him might seem best. The lands were to be sold by a schedule to be agreed upon by the parties as soon as the surveying should have been completed at a price to aggregate not less than $27,500, except by the written consent of the Shorts, upon the following terms: Ten per cent. in cash to be paid by the purchaser upon the delivery of a contract of sale to be executed by the Shorts, the balance to be paid in monthly installments of not less than 3 per cent. and deferred payments to draw 6 per cent. interest. Sherman was to collect all money from such sales and place the same in a fund to be divided as follows: One-half of the money received on each sale to be retained by Sherman as his commission until he had received the amount of 25 per cent of each sale; the remaining 75 per cent. to be given to the Shorts in payment for the land sold. The fund, however, was to be kept intact until the Shorts should be satisfied that all expenditures incurred by Sherman for which they might be liable had been paid out of his commission, and until all indebtedness of the Shorts which might conflict with their ability to make a good conveyance of the land sold should have been paid out of the Shorts' portion of the fund. An accounting was to be made every 30 days. Then followed these clauses:
The complaint alleged that on May 20, 1910, Sherman assigned the foregoing contract to the defendant Rogue River Irrigation & Power Company; that said company paid upon said contract the sum of $4,725 and interest to August 1, 1910; that neither said company nor any other person had made any other payments nor performed any of the stipulations of said contract required by them to be performed; that the other defendants claim some interest or lien upon said property, but if they have any it is subordinate to the rights of plaintiffs. There was a prayer that the defendants be adjudged to have no interest or estate in the premises; that the title of plaintiffs be adjudged good and valid; that the defendants be enjoined from asserting any adverse claim to the property; that the agreement be canceled and annulled; that the Rogue River Irrigation & Power Company and Sherman be required to execute quitclaim deeds to the property; and for general equitable relief.
All the defendants except the power company and Sherman made default. The power company answered disclaiming any interest in the property and alleged:
"Because of the damage caused one W. B. Sherman, one of the defendants herein, by reason of the failure of the said Rogue River Irrigation & Power Company to fulfill the promises and agreements made with the said W. B. Sherman and by reason of which the said W. B. Sherman entered into that written agreement and assignment...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bembridge v. Miller
...561, 53 P. 601; Milton v. Hare, 130 Or. 590, 280 P. 511; Eastern Oregon Land Co. v. Moody, 119 C.C.A. 135, 198 F. 7; Short v. Rogue River Irr. Co., 82 Or. 662, 162 P. 845; Ladd & Tilton v. Mason, 10 Or. Holladay v. Holladay, supra, involved a loan of approximately $160,000 plus interest. Re......
-
Malan v. Tipton
...facts of other cases which also considered the availability of funds to be an evidentiary matter. See, e.g., Short v. Rogue River Irrigation Co., 82 Or. 662, 673, 162 P. 845 (1917) (facts demonstrated that debtor had not arranged to borrow money necessary for payment until after making offe......
-
Milton v. Hare
... ... The land is only a short ... distance from the west side Pacific Highway, a ... "The equitable power of the court to set aside judgments ... by default ... O'Connell, 39 Or. 153, 64 P. 656; Short v. Rogue ... River Irrigation Co., 82 Or. 662, 673, 162 P ... ...
-
Barnhart v. North Pacific Lumber Co.
... ... operated by steam power; the lumber is then shoved along the ... dead rolls ... ...