Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1911-05-04
Brawne & Co. V. Sharkey Co., Multi.
nOmah County.

peal from tne circuit court for Multi
nomah county. The Hon. John B.
Cleland, judge Argued and submit
ted April 5, 1911. John H. Hall and
Jesse Stearns, on brief) for respon-
dent. E. B. Seabrook, for appellant.
Mcbride, j. Remanded.
On September 4, 1908, defendant
entered into contract with Lewis
NJ. Head by the terms Of which Head
was to print and furnish to defen-
dant 10000 booklets, descriptive of
Council Crest, an addition to the city
of Portland, which defendant was
preparing to place upon the market.
The booklet was to contain so pages,
including reading matter, certain IL
lustrations and birdseye view half
tone insert; the reading matter and
view for insert to be supplied by de-
fendant The agreed price of the
whole work was to be $1O71, part
payment to be made as the work
progressed and to be fully paid when
the booklets were delivered.
Head entered upon the work and
caused drawings and cuts to be pre-
pared and printed as fast as defen-
dant supplied copy, and had the
booklets ready for stitching about
November 10, 1908, except that the
half-tone insert, which defendant was
to provide, had not been furnished,
although Head had requested it be-
fore the latter date. Head, there
upon, proposed to defendant that he
would have all or any part of the 1O,-
600 booklets stitched and covered
and delivered to defendant without
the insert, but defendant refused to
accede to this proposition, or to fur
nish the view for the insert, or to
receive the booklets or pay for them,
and rescinded the contract, claiming
that 1t had not been completed with
in a reasonable tome and that the
booklets had been finished too late
in the season to be of any value to
defendant After the booklets had
been completed and were ready for
stitching, Head assignd the contract
and his right Of action Hereunder to
plaintiff who brought this action.
The case was tried without jury
and from findings and Judgment in
favor of plaintiff defendant appeals
Mcbride, j.: The findings of the
court below are each supported by
some evidence and, therefore, we
cannot consider the weight of evil
dence introduced to support them.
No time for the completion of the
work was specified in the contract
and it follows that it should have
been completed within a reasonable
time, What constitutes reasonable
time is to be predicated upon the cir
cumstances of each particular case,
and in this case we think it was COM
petent for plaintiff to show that the
work was done as fast as defendant
furnished the reading matter which
its contract required it to contribute.
No delay would be unreasonable as
against plaintiff if necessarily oc-
casioned by the act Of defendant.
The evidence, therefore, of the fail
ure of defendant to promptly furnish
copy was admissible, not in avoid
ance of the charge that Head de-
layed the work, but to show that he
promptly performed his part of the
work, according to the contract,
which, in. effect, only required him to
print matetr as quickly as defendant
should furnish it,
We do not think this is shown to
be contract for the particular skill
and personal services of Head. 1t Is
not so alleged in the answer, nor is
it shown in the evidence. Heads
contract was to print the book and
furnish the pictures. Both of these
could be done by any competent ar
tlst and printer and there is no hint
IN the pleadings or proof that defen-
dant relied upon any special skill or
talent of Head personally to produce
the books.
To furnish" means to supply or
provide: (Adjudged Words & Phrases,
title "Furnish.") A contract to paint
picture is one of the most common
Illustrations of a personal or non
assignable contract because here the
value of the thing done is one which
necessarily depends upon the pecul-
lar skill of the artist But If a per-
son not shown to be an artist should
contract to furnish picture of a
certain kind, we opine that his con-
tract would be fulfilled if he ten
uered one made by somebody else.
The case of Campbell V. Sumner
county, Ga Kan 375, cited by appel
iaht' wherein it is held that con-
tract to do county printing is one
made in contemplation of the special