Snodgrass v. Andross

• Decision Date: 12 May 1890
• Parties: SNODGRASS v. ANDROSS et al.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

23 P. 969

19 Or. 236

SNODGRASS v. ANDROSS et al.

Supreme Court of Oregon

May 12, 1890

Appeal from circuit court, Umatilla county; JAMES A. FEE, Judge.

The appellant commenced an action in said circuit court against the respondents for the recovery of money. He alleged in his complaint that about April, 1883, he made an agreement with respondents to let to them 500 head of ewe sheep for the term of five years from August 1, 1883, for one-half of the wool and one-half of the increase, the respondents to be at the expense of feeding, herding, and caring for the sheep during the term; that, by reason of the fact that no lot of sheep could at the time be found satisfactory to the parties, the time for furnishing the sheep to respondents was extended by mutual agreement; that appellant, about June 1, 1884, in accordance with the agreement, furnished to respondents 600 head of ewe sheep, which were unsheared, and had with them 427 lambs; that by reason of the fact of the sheep being unsheared, and having with them the lambs, and of their having been fed and cared for from August 1, 1883, until the time of their delivery to the respondents, the appellant was compelled to pay for them $1,200 more than their value would have been on August 1, 1883; that in consideration of the appellant's delivering to the respondents the said sheep unsheared, and of their having lambs, the latter agreed to pay the former the reasonable value for the herding, feeding and caring for them from said 1st day of August, 1883, to the time of their delivery, and that the reasonable value thereof was $1,075; which sum the respondents had neglected and refused to pay. The complaint also contained two other alleged causes of action, one of which was for furnishing pasturage for certain horses and cattle belonging to respondents during the years from 1883 to 1887, both inclusive, for which he claimed $290; the other was the use of a stallion during the season of 1885, for which he claimed $100. Respondents filed an answer to the complaint, in which they admitted the agreement wherein appellant was to let to them the 500 head of ewe sheep upon the terms mentioned in the complaint, and of the furnishing them the 600 head of unsheared sheep and their lambs; but denied that the time for furnishing said 500 head was extended by mutual agreement of the parties, or by any consent or agreement of the respondents, or that, in consideration of appellant's delivering to them said 600 head of sheep with their lambs or otherwise, they undertook or agreed to pay appellant for herding, feeding, or caring for said sheep from August 1 1883, up to the time of said delivery, or for any other time the sum of $1,075, or any other sum. The respondents, for a further defense to appellant's first cause of action averred that in the fall of 1885 they fully paid the appellant all demands on account thereof by paying to him the sum of $383.50 in full satisfaction and discharge of the same; and, for a further defense thereto, the respondents averred that in the year 1885 they and the appellant submitted said demand alleged in appellant's first cause of action, and other controverted matters, to the arbitration of certain persons chosen by them as arbitrators; that said arbitrators made and published an award that the respondents pay to appellant the sum of $65, which they accordingly thereupon paid. The respondents denied that the appellant furnished them pasture for any horses and cattle during the several years alleged in the complaint, or any time; and, for further defense thereto, averred that they and the appellant on the 9th day of April, 1883, agreed that, for all pasturage appellant might furnish to respondents within five years...