East Oregonian : E.O. (Pendleton, OR) 1888-current, 1905-04-22

Two important opinions were rem
dered by the supreme court yester-
day. says the Salem Statesman.
They are important on account of the
great sums of money involved in
each of them. Contracts of sale of
lands granted to the Oregon & Cali
fornia Railroad company by the gov
ernment by the act of congress of
1866, are involved in both cases, and.
as a result of the opinion rendered
by the supreme court, the company
is obliged to satisfy a judgment for
$4,000 in one of them and may yet
have to pay a judgment of $21.619 |
to the plaintiff in the other.
In the first case mentioned that of |
Anthony Neppach, respondent, VS..
The Oregon & California Railroad |
Company. from Multnomah county, |
the plaintiff sued for damages to the |
amount of 100000 against the de- |
fendant for alleged failure to fulfil a |
contract for the sale of 5000 acres of |
its government grant lands. He Sc
defendant company appealed. The |
decision of the lower court, Judge A. |
L. Frazer is affirmed by Justice
Bean. After the contract was enter
ed into and the first payment made
! by plaintiff according to the plead
! ings in the case, a controversy arose
as to the ownership of the land in
question between the Oregon & Cali
fornia company and the Northern Pa
cific as the land had been given to
the latter company prior to the act
granting it to the o. & c. Co.
Pending the settlement of this con-
troversy, the o. & C. Co., by its land
agent, Schuze, refused to accept any
more payments on the contract, al
though they had been rendered by
plaintiff.
The dispute over the land was fin
ally settled in favor of the o. & c. Co.,
by the supreme court of the United
States. The plaintiff then went to
Schulze and offered to make final
payment upon the contract of sale,
but the latter refused to accept it on
the ground that the plaintiff had neg
lected to pay the installments when
due
The contract between Neppach and
Schulze whereby it was mutually
agreed to defer payments upon the
land until the controversy was set
tied, was of an oral nature and the
l defendant company set up the conten-
tion that Schulze had no authority to
bind the company by any such agree
ment. The plaintiff brought suit for
damages for non-fulfilment of con-
e tract and secured a verdict as stated
. above.
= In affirming the decision of the
r trial court the appellate court holds
p that Schulze was the recognized agent
n of the company and that he had full
authority to bind the company in any
agreement relative to the disposition
of such lands as were placed in his
hands for sale.
The second case is similar to the
A first one and involved portion of
6 the land purchased by Himple and
Neppach, mentioned. William r.
Moffett. Jr., trustee, was the plaintiff
and he brought suit against the o. &
= : c. Co. to recover $21.619 on a coh-
tract for the purchase of 5172 acres
of land in the o. & c. railroad grant
: The trial court gave Moffett a judg-
h ment for the amount demanded but
s several questions were raised in the
appeal as to the sufficency of the
. complaint
In reversing the decree of the
;, lower court in this case, Chief Justice
: Woverton finds that the complaint
was sufficient in all respects but that
it was an error to give judgment or
s the pleadings and remands the case
Il for such further proceedings as may
c seem proper and consistent with the
y opinion in this case in the lower court
Another opinion was handed down
~ by the supreme court, that of W. NJ
: Roberts. is appellant. and the s. r
Templeton estate is the respondent
n in which Justice Moore affirm sthe
:, decision of Judge J. w. Hamilton, OF
:, the circuit court for Lane county
This was a suit to compel specific
performance of an oral agreement tC
: convey an individual share of rea
g property. The supreme court holds
d upon the only important question in
r volved, that taking possession by a
e cotenant is not such a partial per-
r formance as will entitle the plaintiff
to maintain the suit.