, 1892-05-09
PROMISING NOTES.
Decision From the Superior Court
Of Clarke County.
There Were Eight Notes Executed in
Oregon---The Decision of the
Superior Judge Reversed by the

- - ? - = = 70 . - = - ~ -
OregOn---The Decision of the
S,,nom,.,,. r,,,,,r, - p.x-.s,.. -, ~,
- Z - - = - ~
supreme Court
n q RFcnanioI onnoIioI,t - y = pras
sIer and q 4pngarsan pGars. resnondants@
NJ 4fe ia = = Z - t'oiiV =
mis- i al oo+ion bro,,ob+ ~ +be an.
neIa1t aoail1st dafs IN 5a sI1ner;p,
conrt f iare co1int 40 raoogar y S,1 y,
Of fonr hnndred d9lIaTs With interest
fboe, r9;, ~ ~ t. " - f ;I, ~
nromissorv notes COMES If which are Sci
forth i19Stba comnleipt rEba ras11o1,6ants
answered admitting liz ayacrtiop of tbe
notes h1l3 alleoad tSat saiG 91tes y,1are 40.
cnfad II 0raga3 tbat liz lnan uas oacle
II TIreoon ara fhat nnder the laws of the
state IF OREGON IN force at tIa tin7e said
l7otas 4yero 7e-renTtad said sootas a,1d fbo
contract Il{,eer which thew xKreTe oixyer, Ivare
nsI1rioIs: setting mn the c1rc1 instances
,sn nrrnnndino the exedI7tior of tbe notes in
sIlnnoyt ~ tbeiT 5eIlegotions and citi1a
Soc 35s7 of cbantar Fl of the C,ode a7
Oregon AnneIIantl demnrred II The
answer IN the oroI1nd that If flfd NOT. state
fanfs srf4iciant Al ca1s stitlIta aa7sa ~ IA.
fensa III fhe several ca1ises of acfion Ut
forth il the COMPLAINT. % or anv Of them
The demurrer was overrT7laf and . raY1I1,
to the answer filed On the issues ANS
made the case was called for trial Hon
Edward Hunter presiding iudee.' The
attorney for nlaintiff in hisonsflil9o address
to fha1 1iii11.yr made tho foIioyrino sfatenoanf
of facts the Droof of which he relied on to
obtain ii1dgment.
tFirst. That defendant PressIer Al
the time named IN tbe nIaadinos aTrIiad
to the firnn7 ~ Tent RI MeGreW1tRe' nIa}ntiff
was their bookkeeperl for 4 loan that nne
lanes HnmnI1ray had money intffba hands
If said 7, ,ent 6r NcC4revU To ho Ioana5 bn
II ~
therefor his money in ret1Irn and Local
Interest onIv. that said firm Of lent e. Nc
Grew loaned to defandants tba s17n, aforo
said and n +he Headlines named tbe
money being said Hnmnhav money.
Humphrey was Ia receive ten ner cenf
per annum interest onlv. bnt fent 4
McGrew were Daid bv The defendants the
sum Of S75. .90 AZ a bonns or commission
for their services. which was moi, shared nv
and also S23 10 advance interest; for Hmm
phrev: that HnmDbrev neither shared
this commission. Authorized it ratified #
or had knowledge of Fl.
t9Second- That said H7mnl,rev aseionad
in the complaint ia fhe nIaintiff for tha
purpose Of suit plaintiff having no interest
other than that of LEGAL holder IF said
notes. and tie nominal indorsee u
Whereunon the court ordered 4 indo.
ment of non-sllit in favor If defendant ma
against plaintiff. mon the grounds dis.
closed in both the foreeoino statements of
facts. to which ruling Of the court the oa
plaintiff. by his counsel. duIy excented
which exception was by The eoi1rt allowed
II seems tfiat the non-snit was not ss1ed
by the defendant. but was voi1ntarv
order on tha mart IF tha co11rt Thie anfioyy
Of Tie court We think ENTIRELY rs1t
bv the law. Section 286 of fbe coda gives ,iyt
the court authority to dismiss an action II or
to anta ~ - "
motion undeT tie folioWina iI eonditions. on IT om!
m When mon the friei ard 6afra ~
final submission of the case. the plaintiff
abandons G39 On The refsai ~ aoect sI
of the plaintiff to make fbe t NJ necessaTw .G~y
parties after having been ordered g 09'fLs bv tbs
court (3l For disobedience Of the 1lain-