Smith v. Farra
Decision Date | 14 December 1891 |
Citation | 28 P. 241,21 Or. 395 |
Parties | SMITH v. FARRA. [1] |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Benton county; MARTIN L. PIPES, Judge.
Action by Cyrus Smith against G.R. Farra and D.B. Montieth on an agreement of compromise. Judgment for plaintiff. Farra appeals. Affirmed.
The other facts fully appear in the following statement by BEAN J.:
This is an action to recover $700 on an agreement of compromise between plaintiff and the defendant, Farra. The facts are these: On July 24, 1888, defendant, Farra, and one Montieth for $305 cash, sold and conveyed by deed containing covenants of title and warranty, lots 7 and 8 in block 4, in West Yaquina, Benton county, Or., to plaintiff. In August, 1890 Farra discovering that he and Montieth did not own the property sold to plaintiff, wrote him the following letter To this letter plaintiff replied as follows: "Amity, Oregon, Aug. 11th, 1890. Dr. G.R. Farra--Dear Sir: Your letter of the 7th inst. is at hand, and in reply will say I was very much surprised to hear that Mr. Keedy had a deed made prior to mine to the lots in West Yaquina that you had deeded to me. I was also a little diverted at the idea that you should say, 'The lots Mr. Buford sold you,' when the record shows that you and Mr. Montieth sold me the lots, and Mr. Buford not known in the transaction. I have had those lots in a real-estate man's hands for some time. He has been instructed by me to sell the two for one thousand dollars, and nothing less. I have been offered eight hundred dollars for them, and refused it. I have taken counsel in the matter, and have been told that beyond a doubt I could recover from you and Mr. Montieth all the damage it is to me, but, as I am averse to lawsuits. I had much rather settle the matter ourselves, providing I can do so without too much loss. Please write me how it happened that you deeded those lots to me after you had deeded them to Mr. Keady. In regard to taking other lots in place of them, I would do so, providing I could get what I consider a fair deal. I know every foot of that ground, and, excepting about six lots, I would rather have those lots than any other two lots in West Yaquina. Please send me a plat of West Yaquina, marking all the lots sold. Also make me an offer of what you propose to do, and oblige, yours truly, CYRUS SMITH: Defendant having refused to comply with his agreement and pay the $700, this action was brought. The trial in the court below resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff, from which defendant appeals.
J.R. Bryson and L. Flinn, for appellant.
J.W. Rayburn, for respondent.
BEAN, J., (after stating the facts.)
The only question presented on this record is the validity of the agreement of compromise between plaintiff and defendant under the facts heretofore stated. The contention of defendant is that for a breach of the covenant of title contained in his deed to plaintiff the law fixes the measure of damages at the purchase price and interest, and that, therefore, the claim of plaintiff was a fixed and liquidated one, and in no sense such a doubtful claim as will support an agreement of compromise. Upon this record it must be conceded that plaintiff had a valid cause of action against defendant for a breach of the covenants of the deed upon which he could have successfully maintained legal proceedings, and that both parties in their negotiations for a settlement, in good faith, believed that the measure of damages was the actual value of the property conveyed at the time the negotiations took place, and not the consideration and interest; and, in order to avoid litigation, and compromise the matter in dispute between them, the agreement sued on was made. Both parties were acting in the utmost good faith, with equal knowledge of the facts, and plaintiff had reasonable ground to think, for he had taken legal advice on the question, that his damages amounted to $800, and intended in good faith to assert his claim, but to avoid litigation he forebore to do so, on account of defendant's promise to pay him $700 preferring to accept that amount rather than go into litigation, and defendant preferring to pay that sum rather than to suffer the consequences of a lawsuit. That there was an actual, bona fide dispute between these parties as to the amount of plaintiff's damages, which each in good faith believed to be doubtful, and that the settlement was intended, in good faith, as a compromise of such dispute is not open to question on this record. But it is now insisted that the dispute was about a matter not in fact doubtful, although the parties so considered it, and therefore the agreement of compromise is without consideration. The law favors voluntary settlements of controversies between the parties, which are characterized...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wilson v. Bogert
...asserted should have some basis upon principles of law or equity." 18 Idaho at page 49, 108 P. at page 345. and from Smith v. Farra, 21 Or. 395, 28 P. 241, 20 L.R.A. 115, as "It is not every disputed claim, however, which will support a compromise, but it must be a claim honestly and in goo......
-
Dodge v. Detroit Trust Co.
...195 S.E. 318;Gilek v. Stock, 33 Ill.App. 147;Stover v. Mitchell, 45 Ill. 213;Wells v. Neff, 14 Or. 66, 12 Pac. 84, 88;Smith v. Farra, 21 Or. 395, 28 P. 241,20 L.R.A. 115;Coffee v. Emigh, 15 Colo. 184, 25 P. 83,10 L.R.A. 125;Warner v. Warner, 124 Conn. 625, 1 A.2d 911, 118 A.L.R. 1348;Wooley......
-
Kiefer Oil & Gas Co. v. McDougal
... ... (Gray Carroll and Harry Campbell, ... both of Tulsa, Okl., on the brief), for appellee ... Before ... SANBORN, ADAMS, and SMITH, Circuit Judges ... SMITH, ... Circuit Judge ... George ... Franklin Berryhill was a part Creek Indian. He was married; ... 441, 54 L.Ed. 625; ... Coffee v. Emigh, 15 Colo. 184, 25 P. 83, 10 L.R.A ... 125; Wells v. Neff, 14 Or. 66, 12 P. 84, 88; ... Smith v. Farra, 21 Or. 395, 28 P. 241, 20 L.R.A ... 115; Cassell v. Ross, 33 Ill. 244, 85 Am.Dec. 270; ... Rowe v. Barnes, 101 Iowa, 302, 70 N.W. 197; Hall ... ...
-
Republic Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Rudine
...will not look into the question of law or fact in dispute between the parties, and determine which is right. (Quoting from Smith v. Farra, 21 Or. 395, 28 P. 241 (1891)). Even if we were to assume Republic acted erroneously by insisting upon dismissal of the counterclaims, R and C would not ......