Title: Donahoe v. Eugene Planing Mill

State: oregon

Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court

Document:

450 P.2d 762 (1969)
Daniel M. DONAHOE, Respondent,
v.
EUGENE PLANING MILL, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Oregon, Department 2.
Argued and Submitted January 10, 1969.
Decided February 26, 1969.
Joe B. Richards, Eugene, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were Luvaas, Cobb, Richards & Fraser, Eugene.
Helen J. Frye, Eugene, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Husband, Johnson & Frye, Eugene.
Before SLOAN, P.J., and GOODWIN and HOLMAN, JJ.
SLOAN, Justice.
Plaintiff's complaint alleged that prior to June 1, 1966, he had been employed by defendant as a plumber and for other work. He claimed that from January 1, 1963 until the above date he expended over 2,000 hours of labor for which he was not paid *763 the agreed rate of $5.50 per hour. By an amended answer defendant attempted to allege an affirmative defense of estoppel. The trial court sustained a demurrer to this plea. The case went to trial on a denial. The jury awarded plaintiff a verdict. Defendant assigns several claims of error. We think the court erred in sustaining the demurrer.
The estoppel pleading alleged as follows:
This is not a model pleading but perfection is not required. Perkins v. Standard Oil Co., 1963, 235 Or. 7, at 19, 383 P.2d 107, at 113:
A plea of estoppel must allege the essential facts. Reed v. Commercial Ins. Co., 1967, 248 Or. 152, 432 P.2d 691. The essential facts necessary to be alleged must include all of the following elements of estoppel:
There is frequently a fine line dividing a pleading containing allegations of essential facts and one that fails to do so. Although the allegations here allege only the barest of essentials, we think it does meet the requirements specified in Perkins v. Standard Oil Co., supra. An examination of the pleading shows that there was: 1. a false representation; 2. plaintiff was aware of the falsity; 3. defendant's ignorance of plaintiff's claims of unpaid wages; 4. that plaintiff intended defendant would rely on its ignorance and would believe that the payment of the claims for wages plaintiff had submitted to defendant during the period of employment were in full payment for all of the services rendered and would act accordingly; and, 5. that defendant had acted upon and changed its position by reason of plaintiff's conduct.
Plaintiff cannot claim that the pleading did not inform him of the true nature of the defense or that the pleading would have misled him in preparing his evidence to refute the pleading. The trial court could have ruled advisedly on any issue that may have developed during the progress of the trial. The demurrer should not have been sustained. A new trial will eliminate the other claims of error.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.