Case Name: BARBRE v. GOODALE
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1896-01-27
Citations: 28 Or. 465
Docket Number: 
Parties: BARBRE v. GOODALE.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 28
Pages: 465–474

Head Matter:
Argued November 12, 1895;
decided January 27, 1896;
rehearing denied.
BARBRE v. GOODALE.
[38 Pac. 67; 43 Pac. 378.]
1. Appeal — Amending Proof of Sf.rvice.— An imperfect proof of service of a notice of appeal may be amended on motion so as to conform to the fact: Dolph v. AHokum, 2 Or. 202, and ¡Seeley v. Sebastian, 3 Or. 563, cited and apjiroved; Briney v. Starr, 6 Or. 207, and Henness v. Wells, 16 Or. 268, distinguished.
2. General Demurrer — Pleading.—A general demurrer to a complaint containing several causes of action is properly overruled where any one of the causes is well stated.
3. Agency — Parol Evidence to Snow Real Parties to Written T" stiiumekt.— Parol testimony is admissible to show that a conduct which is not a negotiable instrument, and not required to be under seal, although so in fact, executed by and in the name of an agent, is the contract of the principal, although the principal is known to the other contracting party at the date of its execution.
4. Degree of Proof — Real Party in Interest.— That plaintiff is the real party in interest is not required to bo established by higher proof than that requisite to establish any other fact in the ease.
Appeal from Lane: J. O. Fullerton, Judge.
This is an action by J. I. Barbre against J. O. Goodale to recover upon two separate causes. The first is upon a written agreement which purports upon its face to be tbe agreement of one G. W. Handsaker, of the first part, and J. G. Goodale, of the second part. By its terms, in brief, the first party agrees to cut, haul, bank, and deliver to the second party two million feet of fir logs, and, if certain conditions of the lumber market continued to prevail, an additional one half million feet, at a certain point upon the McKenzie River, in Lane County, at the rate of three dollars per thousand, to be paid by the second party as follows: One dollar per thousand when the logs were cut and banked, and one dollar per thousand when scaled and rolled in the river, and such balance as should be found due between' the parties within thirty-one days thereafter. The last clause is as follows: “It is’ further understood and agreed, and is a part of the consideration of this agreement, that the second party reserves out of and deducts from the balance that may be due the first party, after making said first two payments, any sum or sums that may then be due or to become due to the second party from J. I. Barbre, or for which he is responsible, to pay J. I. Barbre not to exceed one thousand seven hundred dollars, the obligations of which are now created.” The contract purports to be under seal. After the plaintiff had cut, hauled, and banked one million four hundred and forty-two thousand feet of logs, and cut in the timber three hundred and eighty-two thousand feet more, and while proceeding with the performance of the contract, the defendant, on March first, eighteen hundred and ninety-two, notified and directed him to discontinue the work, as he would not pay for or take any more of such logs. Whereupon plaintiff commenced this action to recover under the contract for such logs as he had cut and banked, and also for such as he had cut in the timber. The complaint proceeds upon the theory that G. W. Handsaker was Barbre’s agent in the execution of said contract, and that it was signed and executed in his name instead of Barbre’s by consent of defendant, and hence that Barbre is entitled to sue upon the agreement solely and in his own name. The second cause of action is based upon the sale and delivery by plaintiff to defendant of nine hundred and eighty-seven thousand feet of other logs at three dollars and twenty-five cents per thousand, upon which a balance of four hundred and seventy-two dollars and thirty-four cents is claimed. At the trial plaintiff had a verdict for two hundred and fourteen dollars, and from the judgment entered thereon the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
For appellant there was a brief and an oral argument by Messrs. L. Bilyeu and J. M. Williams.
For respondent there was a brief and an oral argument by Messrs. George B. and George A. Dorris,

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
Per Curiam.
This is a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of notice. The appellant filed a cross-motion, based upon an affidavit and accompanying papers, from which it appears that within the time allowed by law a notice of appeal was regularly served upon the attorneys for respondent, and the same filed with the clerk of the circuit court, with a certificate of service attached thereto as follows: "State of Oregon, County of Lane, ss. I hereby certify that I served the within notice of appeal within said state and county on the second day of April, eighteen hundred and ninety-four, on the within named defendants George B. Dorris and George' A. Dorris by delivering to them and each of them in person a true and correct copy of this original notice. J. E. Noland, sheriff of Lane County, Oregon, George Croner, deputy." For some reason, not explained, tho paper containing the alleged proof of service becamo detached from the original notice, and could not b.e found until after the transcript had been filed in this court, and hence does not appear therein. Although Messrs. George B. and George A. Dorris were the attorneys for the respondent, and as such could have been and were in fact served with the notice, the proof of such service as indorsed or attached to the notice of appeal when filed is admittedly imperfect. But under the rule in Dolph v. Nickum, 2 Or. 202, and Seeley v. Sabastian, 3 Or. 563, it seems to us the appellant should be allowed to amend the return to conform to the fact. The cases of Briney v. Starr, 6 Or. 207, and Henness v. Wells, 16 Or. 266, relied upon by respondent, are to the effect that the proof of service must accompany and be filed with the notice of appeal, but in neither of these cases was there any proof or attempted proof of service so filed, and there was therefore nothing to amend, while in the case at bar there was an alleged, though imperfect, proof of service filed with the notice, and hence this case comes within the rule announced in the two cases first cited, and not within the cases relied on by the respondent. We think, therefore, the motion to dismiss the appeal should be overruled, .and the crossnnotion to amend allowed. Overruled.