Sunnyside Land & Imp. Co. v. Willamette Bridge Ry. Co.

Citation26 P. 835,20 Or. 544
PartiesSUNNY SIDE LAND & IMP. CO. v. WILLAMETTE BRIDGE RY. CO.
Decision Date30 April 1891
CourtSupreme Court of Oregon

Appeal from circuit court, Multnomah county; E.D. SHATTUCK, Judge.

The complaint in this action alleges, substantially, that on March 24, 1888, plaintiff, being the owner of a tract of land in East Portland known as "Sunny Side," entered into a written contract with the defendant company for the construction within 4 months from said date, and the operation for 30 years from June 1, 1887, of a street railway from the foot of Morrison street in the city of Portland to said tract of land, and as a consideration for which plaintiff was to pay to said defendant the sum of $10,000 and furnish the right of way for said road; that by the terms of said agreement, among other things, it was provided that defendant should cause cars to be run over said railroad each and every day from 6 o'clock A.M. until 8 o'clock P.M. so that a car shall pass every point on said railroad every 15 minutes in each direction, and between the hours of 8 o'clock P.M. and 11 o'clock P.M. cars shall pass every 30 minutes in each direction, and that it should not charge for transporting passengers on said line more than 5 cents for each passenger going in one general direction, and that no further fare shall be charged or compensation demanded for transporting such passengers across the Willamette river. By said agreement it was further provided that "for the due and faithful performance of the conditions of this agreement on the part of each of the parties hereto they respectively bind themselves, each to the other, in the sum of ten thousand dollars, to be paid by the failing party;" that plaintiff has duly performed all the conditions of said contract on its part; that the object of plaintiff in securing the railway services contracted for in said agreement was to render said tract of land desirable for residence purposes, and make it more valuable and salable, all of which defendant well knew; that defendant entered upon the performance of the contract on its part, but has failed and neglected to perform the same in that it does not cause cars to be run over said railway in each direction oftener than every 30 minutes between the hours of 6 o'clock in the morning and 8 o'clock in the afternoon, nor oftener than every 60 minutes between 8 and 11 o'clock P.M., nor does it transport passengers on said line at the rate of 5 cents for each passenger while going in one direction, but has repeatedly charged passengers at the rate of 10 cents for such transportation; that since entering into said contract plaintiff has sold one-half of its tract of land for $160,000, which was all that could be obtained and is still the owner of the remaining half, which is of the value of $300,000; that if defendant had caused the cars to run on said line as provided in the contract, and had only charged the fare therein provided, plaintiff would have received for the portion of the land sold the sum of $170,000, and the part...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • State v. Portland General Elec. Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • May 12, 1908
    ...... the Willamette Falls Canal & Lock Company, which we shall. hereafter ... the one decided in Sunnyside L. Co. v. Bridge Ry. Co., 20 Or. 544, 546, 26 P. ... constructed on land owned in fee by the first company, and. that, by ......
  • American Trading Co. v. National Fiber and Insulation Co.
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Delaware
    • June 17, 1920
    ......& M. Railroad, 36 N.H. 458; Case v. Phoenix Bridge Co., 55 N.Y.S. (23 Jones. & S.) 25. . . ...92, 97; Hadley v. Prather, 64 Ind. 137; Sunnyside v. Willamette Bridge. Railway Co., 20 Or. 544, 26 P. 835; ......
  • Western Feed Co. v. Heidloff
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • March 28, 1962
    ...that he was entitled to at least nominal damages and the motion was therefore properly overruled. Cf. Sunnyside Land & Imp. Co. v. Willamette Bridge Ry. Co., 20 Or. 544, 26 P. 835 (1891); Nicholson v. Jones, 194 Or. 406, 242 P.2d 582 We would reach the conclusion just expressed without taki......
  • Grove City Veterinary Serv., LLC v. Charter Practices Int'l, LLC, 3:13-cv-02276-AC
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Oregon)
    • February 5, 2016
    ...or can be shown." City of Rainier v. Masters, 79 Or. 534, 542-43 (1916), See also Sunnyside Land & Imp. Co. v. Willamette Bridge Ry. Co., 20 Or. 544, 546 (1891) ("The complaint sets out a contract between the parties, and avers a breach thereof by defendant. The demurrer, admitting the trut......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT