Warren v. Dinwoodie

• Decision Date: 09 April 1918
• Citation: 88 Or. 342,171 P. 1175
• Parties: WARREN v. DINWOODIE ET AL.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

171 P. 1175

88 Or. 342

WARREN v. DINWOODIE ET AL.

Supreme Court of Oregon

April 9, 1918

Department 2.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County; Robert G. Morrow Judge.

Action by Theodore Warren against John Dinwoodie and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant named and N. A. Hoffard and David Clark appeal. Affirmed.

The defendants John Dinwoodie, N. A. Hoffard, and David Clark appeal from a judgment against them and defendant C. A Parvin for the sum of $677.50 for labor performed and personal property sold and delivered to defendants by plaintiff. C. A. Parvin did not appeal. The cause was tried by the court without the intervention of a jury. Findings of fact and conclusions of law were made and the judgment was based thereon.

It appears that in March, 1914, one Harris was in possession of a ranch in Gilliam county, Or., known as the "French Charley Place" under a lease for the year 1914 and extending until March 1, 1915. The plaintiff, his son-in-law was living on the place. The defendants Parvin, Hoffard, and Dinwoodie, with a view of buying the ranch, inspected the same in March, 1914. The plaintiff asked about working for them in case they should purchase the premises, and one of them, Mr. Hoffard, said in the presence of the other appellants that if they bought the place they would perhaps hire help to run it; that Mr. Parvin would be the man in charge; and that "whatever he done was all right with the rest of them." They also looked at some personal property with a view of buying it. The place was purchased by the appellants and Mrs. Grace Parvin, and the title was taken in the name of Mr. Hoffard for convenience. In June, Mr Parvin went to the ranch and wanted a lot of harrowing and disking on the summer fallow, which work plaintiff did. In August he hired the plaintiff and his son with a team to work on the place, prepare the land, and put in grain for the crop of 1915.

B. G Skulason, of Portland (Clark, Skulason & Clark, of Portland, on the brief), for appellants. W. L. McFarling and D. P. Price, both of Portland, for respondent Warren. Pearce & Maloney, of Portland, for respondent Parvin.

BEAN, J. (after stating the facts as above).

It is claimed upon the part of the appealing defendants that after the purchase they made a contract with C. A. Parvin for the sale of their interest in the ranch to him, and that he alone was responsible to plaintiff. This deal, however, was never fully consummated. They also claim that there was no testimony showing that Parvin was authorized to act for the other defendants.

Where a cause is tried by the court without the intervention of a jury, the findings of fact made by the court are deemed a verdict, and may be set aside only for the same reasons. L. O. L. § 159; U.S. Fidelity Co. v. Martin, 77 Or. 369, 392, 149 P. 1023; Doolittle v. P. Coast, etc., Wks., 79 Or. 498, 503, 154 P. 753. Upon an appeal based upon findings of fact made in such a case this court has repeatedly held that such findings made by the trial court cannot be set aside on appeal if there is any competent evidence to support them. Flegel v. Koss, 47 Or. 366, 83 P. 847; Astoria R. R. Co. v. Kern, 44 Or. 538, 76 P. 14; Norman v. Ellis, 74 Or. 168, 143 P. 1112; Clackamas So. Ry. Co. v. Vick, 72 Or. 580, 144 P. 84.

Considerable attention is devoted in the briefs of the learned counsel for the appealing defendants to the introduction of what is claimed to be incompetent evidence, and it would seem that the argument verges upon the weight of the evidence which we cannot consider. It is a...