Case Name: A. FERRERA, Appellant, v. L. C. PARKE and B. T. LACY, Respondents
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1890-04-16
Citations: 19 Or. 141
Docket Number: 
Parties: A. FERRERA, Appellant, v. L. C. PARKE and B. T. LACY, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 19
Pages: 141–152

Head Matter:
[Filed April 16, 1890.]
A. FERRERA, Appellant, v. L. C. PARKE and B. T. LACY, Respondents.
Judgment op Non-suit on Dependant’s Motion — when Improper. — Under section 246, mu’s Code, a judgment of non-suit on the defendant’s motion is improper, if the defendant was required to produce evidence to meet the plaintiffs case.
Defective Pleading — “Express Aider.” — A pleading which is defective by reason of the omission of some material allegation, may be aided by the pleading of the adverse party. If the omitted allegation be supplied by the adverse pleading, it is the same as if it were inserted in the party’s own pleading.
Per Lord, J., dissenting.
Conversion Depined. — Conversion is based on the idea of an assumption by the defendant of a right of property, or a right of dominion over the thing converted, which casts upon him all the risks of an owner, and consequently it is not every wrongful detention of property that amounts to conversion.
When Demand and Refusal not Sufficient Evidence of Conversion. — A demand and refusal will not be sufficient evidence of conversion when it appears that the property demanded was not at the time in the possession or under the control of the defendant on whom the demand was made, but that it had been previously mislaid or was lost.
Appeal from Multnomah county: E.D.Shattuck, judge.
This is an action to recover damages for the conversion of certain chattels. It is alleged in the complaint that on the fifteenth day of February, 1887, the defendants were partners doing business at the city of Portland, and that on that day the plaintiff was the owner and in the possession of certain personal property, to wit: !‘A plan and drawing of a maccaroni and feroni paste factory, and of the machinery, utensils and apparatus to be used in said factory in the manufacture of maccaroni and feroni, made and prepared for the plaintiff by E. Gravero and Company in Foce, near Geneva, Italy, of the value of §2,500, and that the defendants thereafter converted the same to their own use, to plaintiff’s damage in the sum of $2,500; that before the commencement of this action, at divers times the plaintiff demanded said property of the defendants, and that they refused and still refuse to return or deliver the same to the plaintiffs. The complaint further alleges that he had expended $500 in preparations to run and operate said maccaroni and feroni paste factory and that he was unable to begin or conduct said business by reason of said wrongful conversion, and demands judgment for $3,000 damages.
The answer denies the material allegations of the complaint, and then alleges, as a further defense, that in the year 1887 the defendants were engaged in a machinery business in the city of Portland, Oregon, and on or about the-day of January in said year the plaintiff delivered to the defendants a plan and drawing of certain structures and machinery for the purpose of having the defendants procure for him certain machinery to comport with said plan and drawing; that while said plan and draw» ing were in the possession of the defendants for said purpose it became accidentally lost and defendants have since been unable to find the same. The answer then expressly-admits that plaintiff demanded a return of said property and that defendants failed to return it, but that they say the,demand was made after its loss. The reply denies the new matter in the answer except the delivery of said properly to the defendants and the purpose for which it was delivered.
All the evidence is in the record. The plaintiff’s evidence tended to prove that he delivered said property to the defendants substantially for the purpose specified in defendants’ separate answer and that they were to return the same to bim in ten days with their estimates; that the plaintiff continued to visit the house almost daily for nearly a year, and on many of those occasions he asked to have his plans returned to him. Finally one of the defendants told him that it was too bad, but that he had seen the same in San Francisco, tbat be bad been expecting to bave it returned to tbe plaintiff, but tbat tbe same could not be found any more. Tbe plaintiff’s evidence further tended to prove tbe value of said property. Tbe plaintiff further gave evidence tending to prove that the defendant sent said plans and specifications to their bouse in San Francisco to get a bid there as to tbe cost of doing tbe work.
Tbe plaintiff having rested bis case, tbe defendants introduced evidence tending to support their defense And then on their motion, tbe plaintiff was non-suited from which judgment this appeal is taken.
C. H. Carey, for Appellant.
L. B. Cox, for Respondent.

Opinion:
Strahan, J.,
delivered tbe opinion of tbe court.
Tbe journal entry disposing of this cause in tbe court below recites tbat after tbe plaintiff bad introduced bis evidence in chief, and tbe defendants their evidence in chief, and tbe plaintiff bis evidence in rebuttal, and the plaintiff having announced tbat be bad no more evidence to offer, tbe defendants filed their written motion for judgment of non-suit, which was duly argued and submitted to tbe court, and by tbe court sustained, and then follows tbe usual judgment of non-suit which awards costs to tbe defendants. Tbe practice on this subject in this State is regulated by section 246, Hill's Code, which pro vides:
"A judgment of non-suit may be given against tbe plaintiff as provided in this title— 3. On motion of tbe defendant, when tbe action is called for trial, and tbe plaintiff fails to appear, or when after tbe trialbas begun, and before tbe final submission of tbe cause, tbe plaintiff abandons it, or when upon tbe trial tbe plaintiff fails to prove a cause sufficient to be submitted to tbe jury."
Under this section of tbe Code tbe test is, whether or not tbe plaintiff's evidence tends to prove a cause sufficient to be submitted to a jury; and in passing on this question the evidence submitted by the defendant, if any, cannot be considered for any purpose, for the reason that if it is necessary for the defendant to meet the plaintiff's case by evidence, then the case becomes one for the jury and could not be withdrawn from them in this summary manner. This view has been steadily maintained by this court in every case in which the question has arisen. In Grant v. Baker, 12 Or. 329, this court said: "To authorize the court to non-suit a plaintiff, the latter must fail to prove a cause sufficient to be submitted to a jury It must be such a case, that if the jury were to find a verdict for the plaintiff, the court would be required to set it aside for the want of evidence to support it. Civil Code, § 243, 244. It would have to be a case where there was a total failure of proof of some material allegation of the complaint." So in Salmon v. Olds, 9 Or. 488, it was held that a defendant was not entitled to a non-suit, where, upon the pleadings and evidénce introduced, a prima facie case has been made out against him.
So also in Tippin v. Ward, 5 Or. 454. it was held that a case should be submitted to the jury, unless there is an entire lack of evidence tending to maintain the issues on the part of the plaintiff; or unless upon the whole case made by the plaintiff himself it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff has no right to recover; and the same principle was applied in Southwell v. Beezley, 5 Or. 459.
Prima facie the plaintiff made a case sufficient to be submitted to the jury. He showed the delivery of his property to the defendants for a particular purpose, gave testimony tending to prove its value, a demand on the defendants for its return, and their failure to return it. The jury had the right to pass on this evidence and to say under proper instructions of the court whether or not the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict. He was, unless the effect of this evidence was countervailed in some way by the defendants, and they presented another question proper for the jury to consider. The defendants set up that the property was lost while it was in their custody. Whether the defendants bad the right to send said property to San Francisco, whether it was lost, and if so was it under such circumstances as would exonerate the defendants from all liability, were all questions presented by the defendants, and they were for the jury under proper instructions by the court.
The learned counsel for the respondents, in support of the practice adopted in the court below, cites Jansen v. Acker, 23 Wend. 481; Rudd v. Davis, 3 Hill, 287 S. C. 7 Hill, 529; People v. Cook, 8 N. Y. 67; Somer v. Meeker, 25 N. Y. 361; Geary y. Simmons, 39 Cal. 224. These authorities certainly do tend very strongly to support the respondents' contention, but they are at variance with what has already been settled in this court. The particular statutes under which these cases were decided, if any, were not brought to our notice ; and if there were no statutes governing such practice, and those cases simply announced the general course of procedure in those States, the cases could not be accepted as controlling authority in this State.
4. Respondents' counsel has criticised the complaint, and doubtless it would have been more in harmony with the spirit of code pleading if it had alleged, amongst other things, the delivery of this property to the defendants, and the object of such delivery, etc., and the defendants' failure to return it; but the defendants have supplied that by an "express aider" in their answer. Bliss Code Pl. § 437. These allegations are contained in the defendants' answer, with the further matter designed to excuse such failure.
These are questions which should have been tried out before that jury, upon the merits of which we indicate no opinion at this time, but reverse the judgment and remand the cause for a new trial.
(1) 59 Am. Dec. 451.