Case Name: SEXTON v. McINNIS
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1906-01-02
Citations: 48 Or. 342
Docket Number: 
Parties: SEXTON v. McINNIS.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 48
Pages: 342–347

Head Matter:
Decided 2 January, 1906,
rehearing allowed.
Decided on reargument 21 Aug.,
further hearing denied 23 Oct. 1906.
SEXTON v. McINNIS.
82 Pac. 1135, 86 Pac. 778.
Application op Payments.
1. Plaintiffs and defendant became indemnitors to the surety of a contractor on his agreement to purchase supplies from them,, and bn his inability to complete his contract plaintiffs and defendant, in order to reduce their liability, completed the work. Plaintiffs alleged that in carrying out the work they, at defendant's request, furnished merchandise and advanced money and rendered services to the amount of $7,322.76 above all moneys received by them on account of the contract, including the account against the contractor due plaintiffs at the time of his failure, after allowing a credit on his account for $4,000 paid to plaintiffs by the firm composed of plaintiffs and defendant after they commenced to complete the contract. Held, that, in the absence of any allegation that any of the supplies were furnished or moneys advanced or services rendered to the contractor at defendant’s request, the $4,000 was applicable only to the indebtedness of the firm of plaintiffs and defendant to plaintiffs, and not to the Indebtedness of the contractor.
Equity — Discretion as to Costs.
2. Under Section 566, B. & C. Comp., the costs and disbursements in equity may be imposed as discretion may suggest, as, each party to pay his own charges in the trial court, and one party to recover his costs and disbursements on appeal.
From Wasco: William L. Bradshaw, Judge.
Suit for an accounting by F. C. Sexton and W. E. Waltber against Malcolm Mclnnis, in which defendant appeals from the decree. The decision was affirmed, but on rehearing the affirmance was changed to a modification.
Modieied.
For appellant there was a brief over the names of TF. H. Wilson and Menefee & Wilson, with oral arguments by Mr. William Hall Wilson and Mr. Frederick W. Wilson.
For respondents there was a brief over the name of Huntington &. Wilson, with oral arguments by Mr. Bela STiaw Huntington.
Decided 2 January, 1906.
Decided 21 August, 1906.

Opinion:
On First Hearing.
Per Curiam.
This is a suit for an accounting and settlement between parties who are sureties on a bond given by one Bertelson to indemnify the surety on his bond as a sub-contractor for a portion of the construction work on the Columbia & Northern Railway in the State of Washington. Bertelson commenced the performance of his contract, but defaulted therein, and the parties to this suit undertook to complete it. In doing so they met with considerable loss, and the object of this suit is to settle and adjust th'eir liabilities as among themselves.
The questions involved are entirely of fact. The evidence is conflicting and irreconcilable, and no useful purpose can be served by a reference thereto in an opinion. It is sufficient to say that, after a careful and thorough examination of the testimony we concur in the conclusions of the trial court, and its decree will be affirmed.