Case Name: FRANK R. SHORES v. FRED HOLLISTER
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1924-03-11
Citations: 111 Or. 330
Docket Number: 
Parties: FRANK R. SHORES v. FRED HOLLISTER.
Judges: McBride, C. J., and Burnett and Rand, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 111
Pages: 330–334

Head Matter:
Argued February 19,
affirmed March 11,
rehearing denied April 15,
rehearing denied June 3, 1924.
FRANK R. SHORES v. FRED HOLLISTER.
(223 Pac. 741; 224 Pac. 830.)
Appeal and Error — Appellate Court Inclined to Accept Findings of Fact by Trial Court.
1. Where the testimony is contradictory, and the Supreme Court has difficulty in determining the truth, it is inclined to accept the findings of the trial court.
Costs — Not Allowed Where Neither Party Prevails on Appeal.
2. Where both parties appeal from a decree and neither prevail, neither party will recover costs.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING.
Appeal and Error — Defendant Estopped to Complain of Trial Court’s Action in Adopting His Position Assumed on Trial on Appeal.
3. In a suit for the dissolution of a partnership and an accounting, where at trial defendant claimed that a settlement at or before the partnership was formed was conclusive on both parties, and the court adopted his position, he could not complain on appeal of the court’s action on that behalf.
See 4 C. J., pp. 701, 885; 15 C. J., p. 242.
From Coos: John S. Coke, Judge.
Department 1.
Affirmed. Rehearing Denied.
For appellant there was a brief and oral argument by Mr. Austin S. Hammond.
For respondent there was a brief over the name of Mr. Walter Sinclair, with an oral argument by Mr. J. Arthur Berg.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is a suit for dissolution of a partnership and for an accounting. The issues are somewhat complicated and the evidence on material points is in some respects flatly contradictory. The Circuit Court found in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, in the sum of $2,106.40, from which decree defendant has appealed. The respondent has taken a cross-appeal, claiming that he is entitled to a decree for $3,711.44, instead of the amount awarded him by the court.
We have given the testimony herein a careful and thorough examination. We find it difficult, in view of its contradictory character, to determine exactly where the real truth lies; the contradictions arising perhaps from a rather loose course of dealing and consequent misunderstanding between the parties, rather than from any conscious disposition to misrepresent the facts. The learned circuit judge who heard the case had the witnesses before him and no doubt knew them all personally, as they are men of standing in the community, and was much better qualified to appraise the value of their testimony than we are; and we are inclined to accept his conclusions as correct, or as near an approximation to correctness as can be attained from the confused and contradictory testimony adduced on the trial. There is not a single disputed question of law in the case; it is a matter of facts and figures only, and a discussion of these would add nothing to the value of this opinion or be of any interest to the profession.
We adopt the findings of the Circuit Court, and affirm the decree. As both parties have appealed and neither has prevailed in his contentions here, neither party will recover costs. Affirmed.
For the motion, Mr. Austin S. Hammond.
Contra, Mr. J. Arthur Berg and Mr. Walter Sinclair.