Western Farquhar Machinery Co. v. Burnett

• Decision Date: 12 December 1916
• Citation: 161 P. 384,82 Or. 174
• Parties: WESTERN FARQUHAR MACHINERY CO. v. BURNETT.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

161 P. 384

82 Or. 174

WESTERN FARQUHAR MACHINERY CO. v. BURNETT.

Supreme Court of Oregon

December 12, 1916

In Banc.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Union County; J. W. Knowles, Judge.

Action by the Western Farquhar Machinery Company against B. P Burnett. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

This was an action upon a promissory note, which is in the following form:

"$400.00 No. One. La Grande, Oregon, Sept. 10, 1915. November 15 1915, after date, for value received, I, or either of us promise to pay to the order of the Oregon Cooperative Association four hundred and no--100 dollars, payable at La Grande, Oregon, with 8 per cent. interest from date. This note is given upon the purchase of one rake separator 22X28 with straw carrier, feeder tables and bagger, one nine horse Alamo engine mounted upon trucks upon the express condition the title or ownership does not pass from the said Union County Co-operative Association until this note and interest is paid in full, and the said Union County Co-operative Association or their assigns are hereby fully authorized and empowered to declare this note due any time they may feel insecure, even before the maturity of the note if they so elect, may take possession of said one rake separator 22X28 with straw carrier, feeder tables and bagger. One nine horse Alamo engine mounted on trucks, and upon its sale credit to the amount of the note. And in case suit or action is instituted to collect this note, or any portion thereof, I, or either of us promise and agree to pay in addition to the costs and disbursements provided by statute, such additional sum as the court may adjudge reasonable for attorney's fees to be allowed in said suit or action. P. O. Address, Hilgard, Ore. Due _____. B P. Burnett."

It was alleged that the payee, the Oregon Co-operative Association indorsed the note to plaintiff before due, and that plaintiff is now the owner and holder of the same. Defendant answered, admitting the execution of the note, but denied that it was transferred or delivered before due for value, and alleged that the note was executed in favor of the Oregon Co-operative Association at the request of plaintiff; that the said association was the agent of plaintiff in making the sale; that the machine described in the note was sold to the defendant at that time by plaintiff, acting through the Oregon Cooperative Association as its agent, for the sum of $850, evidenced by two promissory notes, each signed by defendant, and one of which is the note in suit here. The answer further alleges:

"That the defendant, at the time of said purchase, and at the time of the execution of said notes, was and still is a farmer, engaged in farming and raising grain in the vicinity of Starkey, Union county, Or., and purchased said threshing machine and outfit for the express purpose of threshing his own, and others' grain for a consideration, all of which plaintiff then well knew; that the plaintiff, being at the time of said sale to...