Case Name: WILLIAMS v. PACIFIC SURETY COMPANY
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1915-06-15
Citations: 77 Or. 210
Docket Number: 
Parties: WILLIAMS v. PACIFIC SURETY COMPANY.
Judges: Mr. Justice Burnett dissenting.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 77
Pages: 210–221

Head Matter:
Motion to dismiss submitted on briefs February 1, denied February 16, 1915.
Argued on the merits May 25,
modified June 15,
rehearing denied September 7, 1915.
WILLIAMS v. PACIFIC SURETY COMPANY.
(146 Pac. 147; 149 Pac. 524.)
Appeal and. Error — Abstract—Insufficiency—Remedy.
1. Jurisdiction of an appeal having been obtained by tbe filing of a transcript, if respondent considers tbe abstract filed by appellant improper or unfair, bis remedy is to file sueb an additional abstract as be deems necessary to a full understanding of the questions involved, as provided by Supreme Court Rule 7 (56 Or. 616, 117 Pac. x).
Appeal and Error — Bill of Exceptions — Abstract—Diminution of Record.
2. Where an abstract of tbe record on appeal refers to a bill of exceptions and states that a transcript of tbe testimony is made a part thereof, but neither has been filed in the Supreme Court, a diminution of the record may be suggested and proper correction made on application if counsel cannot stipulate the facts desired as authorized by Supreme Court rule 40 (50 Or. 629, 117 Pac. xiv.)
Evidence — Materiality—Admissibility.
3. Where the time when papers were executed was in issue, the papers themselves are properly received in evidence.
Evidence — Construction.
4. Where a contract provided that both parties should procure and deliver to the other, as security, bonds in the sum of $25,000, or, in lieu thereof, other security satisfactory to the parties, mortgages given by plaintiff instead of a surety bond should be received in evidence showing the way in which the parties construed the contract.
Principal and Surety — Action on Bond — Evidence.
5. Where the seller of a sawmill agreed to deliver to the purchaser a certain number of sawlogs, and executed a bond to seeure performance, it was proper, in a suit on the bond, to show that the sawmill was of much less value than the amount paid, for the excess was the consideration for the log contract.
Principal and Surety — Actions—Defenses.
6. As a surety is only entitled to notice of his principal’s default within a reasonable time, it cannot, as a matter of law, -be held that plaintiff’s failure to give notice for about a month was so unreasonable as to discharge the surety.
[As to what operates as release of surety, see note in 28 Am. St. Rep. 691.]
Assignments — Evidence—Sufficiency.
7. In an action against a surety on a logging contract, evidence held to support a finding that the contract, which had been assigned, was reassigned to plaintiff before action was brought.
Principal and Surety — Actions—Defenses.
8. A corporate surety cannot complain of technical breaches of conditions in the bond, unless such breaches cause financial loss.
[As to discharge of surety on fidelity bond by failure of employer to notify surety of employee’s delinquency, see note in Ann. Cas. 1912D, 1286.]
Logs and Logging — Damages—Measure.
9. Where a logging contract was breached, plaintiff’s measure of damages is the difference between the contract price and the price he would have to pay for logs at the point of delivery, or, if none could be obtained there, the price of logs at the nearest point, plus the eost of transportation, notwithstanding that price would have been too high for the profitable manufacture of lumber.
Damages — Interest—Allowance—Unliquidated Damages.
10. In an action on a surety bond for unliquidated damages, interest cannot be allowed.
From Multnomah: Henry E. McGinn, Judge.
This is an action by F. F. Williams against the Pacific Surety Company, a corporation, in which judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Respondent files motion to dismiss appeal.
Motion Denied.
For the motion there was a brief submitted over the names of Messrs. Platt & Platt and Mr. J. O. Bailey.
Contra, there was a brief over the names of Mr. Thomas H. Crawford and Messrs. Wilbur, Spencer & Beckett.
In Banc.

Opinion:
Opinion
Per Curiam.
The respondent's counsel move to dismiss this appeal on the ground that the abstract does not contain so much of the record of the trial of the cause as is necessary intelligently to present the questions to be decided. Within proper time a transcript on appeal and an abstract were filed with the clerk of this court. The transcript contains certified copies of the verdict, judgment, notice of appeal, undertaking therefor, and the service of the two latter as evidenced by indorsement noted thereon. The abstract sets forth what appear to be copies of the pleadings, verdict, judgment, motion for a new trial, order denying the same, and assignment of alleged errors. The specifications of error consist in admitting, over objection and exception, testimony, giving the questions and answers in most instances, and in others the substance of the evidence received, instructing the jury as complained of, setting out parts of the charge, refusing to instruct as requested, quoting the language desired to be given, and the denial of the motion for a new trial.
Jurisdiction of the appeal was obtained by the filing of the transcript, and, if the respondent's counsel considered the abstract improper or unfair, such additional abstract as they deemed necessary to a full understanding of the questions involved might have been filed: Eule 7 (56 Or. 616,117 Pac. x).
The abstract of record refers to a bill of exceptions, and also states that a transcript of the testimony is made a part thereof, but neither has been filed in this court. If a diminution of the record is desired, such correction can be made upon proper application, if counsel cannot stipulate the facts desired: Rule 40 (56 Or. 629, 117 Pac. xiv).
The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.
Motion Denied.