Strode v. Smith
Citation | 131 P. 1032,66 Or. 163 |
Parties | STRODE et al. v. SMITH et al. |
Decision Date | 29 April 1913 |
Court | Supreme Court of Oregon |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County; Henry E. McGinn, Judge.
Action by Kate Strode and others against Frank E. Smith and another. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
The defendants appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs for $6,000, damages for the breach of a bond.
The complaint, for the first cause of action, shows the following facts: On the 28th day of May, 1910, the plaintiffs executed a lease to defendant Frank E. Smith of a certain lot in the city of Portland, Or., for the term of 35 years. The lease contained 25 separate stipulations set forth at length in the complaint. The general provisions were: That the lessee should pay a monthly rental of $1,500 in advance, beginning on the 1st day of October, 1910, also all taxes, charges, and assessments imposed on the property, including water rents and the general taxes for the year 1910, which were to be paid on or prior to the 15th day of March, 1911; that the lessee should erect a building upon the premises, of the kind specified in the lease, to be of the value of $100,000; that the erection of such building should be commenced in good faith within one year from the execution of the lease; and that the lessee should keep the same insured for two-thirds of its value. The twelfth stipulation read as follows 'That the said lessee covenants and agrees that within sixty (60) days from the execution of this lease he will execute and deliver to the lessors a bond with a good, safe and reliable surety company as surety for the sum of six thousand ($6,000) dollars, to insure the lessee carrying out this lease, which bond shall be made to the lessors and in form and conditioned as they may desire, and which must be satisfactory to them, and continue in force as to such surety for not less than one year. *** The lessee further covenants and agrees that not later than sixty-five (65) days before the commencement of the removal of the building which now stands upon the said leased real property, he, the said lessee, will execute and deliver to the lessors a bond with a good, safe and reliable surety company as surety for the sum of fifty thousand ($50,000.00) dollars, covering at least one year and conditioned that said lessee will construct and pay for a building on said leased premises as hereinbefore provided, which bond shall be made to the lessors and in form and conditioned as they may desire and to be satisfactory to them. In the event that the liability of such surety on such last named bond should not continue until the full completion of said building as herein provided, then said lessee shall renew said bond for like time, in the same form and with same or like surety satisfactory to the lessors." Pursuant to the terms of the lease, duplicates thereof were placed with the bank in escrow, to be delivered when Frank E. Smith should execute to the plaintiffs the bond with surety, as provided for.
On August 13, 1910, according to the agreement, defendant Frank E. Smith executed and delivered to plaintiffs the following bond:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Layton Mfg. Co. v. Dulien Steel, Inc.
...141 Or. 117, 125, 10 P.2d 910, 15 P.2d 1078 (1932); Alvord v. Banfield, 85 Or. 49, 59, 166 P. 549 (1917). Contra, Strode v. Smith, 66 Or. 163, 179--80, 131 P. 1032 (1913). Compare, the majority and dissenting opinions in Chaffin v. Ramsey, 276 Or. 429, 436, 555 P.2d 459 (1976).7 Restatement......
-
Wright v. Schutt Const. Co.
...Supra, 340, § 1058, and cases cited therein. But see Krausse v. Greenfield, 61 Or. 502, 512, 123 P. 392 (1912); Strode v. Smith, 66 Or. 163, 175, 131 P. 1032 (1913); Alvord v. Banfield, 85 Or. 49, 57, 166 P. 549 (1917). Cf. Medak v. Hekimian, Supra, 241 Or. at 44, 404 P.2d It may be, howeve......
-
Learned v. Holbrook
...... Adams, 43 Or. 621, 630, 74 P. 215; Fleishman v. Meyer, 46 Or. 270, 271, 80 P. 209; Zanello v. Smith. & Watson Iron Works, 62 Or. 213, 217, 124 P. 660. It. appears from the defendants' testimony that it is not. impossible to erect a ...Justice Moore in Krausse v. Greenfield, 61 Or. 502, 512, 123 P. 392, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 115, and by Mr. Justice Bean in Strode v. Smith, 66 Or. 163, 131 P. 1032. This case is. distinguished from Wilhelm v. Eaves, 21 Or. 194,. 200, 27 P. 1053, 14 L. R. A. ......
-
Alvord v. Banfield
......1. Underhill on Landlord and Tenant, p. 594, § 378; Meagher v. Eilers Music House, supra; Ladd & Bush v. Smith, 6. Or. 316; Cunningham v. Stockon, 81 Kan. 780, 106 P. 1057, 19 Ann. Cas. 212; Chaude v. Shepard, 122 N.Y. 397, 25 N.E. 358; Yuen ... the conditions of the lease as to the deposit. The demurrer. to the complaint should have been overruled. Strode v. Smith, 66 Or. 163, 131 P. [85 Or. 61] 1032 . . . It. follows that the judgment of the circuit court must be. ......