Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1911-05-26

parties hereto" and we conclude
that 1t is a several contract.
However, to determine what Is
the effect of the contract is a more
difficult question. Is 1t so definite
as to the undertaking of Peebler as
to make it enforcible against him:
1t does not bind him to do any
definite or specific thing. so that he
was not liable thereon to the first
parties either in damages for nom
performance or in suit for specific
performance. There was no mutual
ity of obligation. The principal uu-
dertaking on his part is to agitate
for a reduction in freight rates.
What that might contemplate is not
specified and is not the subject Of
proof nor capable of specific per-
formance. Other things to be done
by him, mentioned therein, are only
at his own option, as he may deem
necessary and proper. Every con-
tract must be definite and certain as
to the terms to be performed by
either party and If 1t is so uncertain
and ambiguous that the court is un-
able to collect from 1t what the par
ties intended, the court cannot en-
force it; and since there is no obli-
cation there is no contract. II the
contract in any case is so indefinite
as to make it impossible for the
court to decide Just what 1t means
and fix exactly the legal liability of
the parties, it cannot result in an
enforcible contract: 9 Cyc 24S. To
the same effect are Pollock on Con-
tracts, AS; Fairplay School Town
ship V. O'Neal, 1877 Ind. 95; Barton
V. Spinning, Wash. 45S Marble v.
Standard Oil Co., 169 Mass. 553.
The contract by its terms was in
tended to bind the farmers to pay
without any consideration moving to
them, as they promise to pay
whether the said reduction shall
hereafter be voluntarily made by
said transportation lines conveying
from said territory, or the said re-
duction in said rates shall result
from the agitation set on foot by the
said party of the second part, his
agents, servants and employees, or
from proceedings instituted by the
said party Of the second part for
such reduction or from any other
cause" This clause of the contract
alone indicated bad faith on the part
Of Peebler, an attempt to create a
liability on the part of the farmers
without obligation on his own part.
The contract is not mutual, and the
promise of defendant to pay Is with
out consideration and is void.
The judgment is affirmed
Parker V. DAILY, Columbia COUNTY.
Newton ]. Parker, respondent, v.
John DAILY, appellant. Appeal from
the circuit court for Columbia coun-
ty, The Hon. Thomas A. Mcbride,
Judge. On petition for rehearing.
Reversed and dismissed April 4, 1911.
ia Pac. 926. Graham G. Cleeton, and
H. B, Nicholas, for appellant. G. c.
Spencer and L. X. Adams, for re-
spondent Eakin, C. j.. Denied.
Eakin, c. j. A petition for rehear-
ing was filed by plaintiff and also
one by defendant. Plaintfff urges
that the failure of defendant to pay
the taxes on the land after he ac-
quired the title thereto, and the pay
ment thereof by plaintiff after the
year 1896 (probably assessed to plain
tim is a sufficient showing of negll-
gence or at least acQuiescence by the
defendant in plaintiffs possession of
the property and the expenditure of
money thereon to constitute bad
faith toward plaintiff, but this con-
tention is without merit. Whether