Case Name: THIENES v. FRANCIS
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1913-09-16
Citations: 69 Or. 171
Docket Number: 
Parties: THIENES v. FRANCIS.
Judges: Mr. Chief Justice. McBride, Mr. Justice Moore and Mr. Justice Burnett concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 69
Pages: 171–180

Head Matter:
Motion to dismiss appeal decided September 16, 1913.
Argued on the merits January 20,
decided February 3, 1914.
THIENES v. FRANCIS.
(134 Pac. 1195; 138 Pac. 845.)
Appeal and Error — Waiver of Appeal — Acceptance of Benefits.
1. Where the defendant in an action for a money judgment filed a cross-bill asking for equitable relief, as permitted by Section 390, L. O. L., and, after the court had rendered a decree restraining the plaintiff in the action at law from seeking recovery for certain items set forth in the complaint but permitting it as to others, the defendant in that action answered therein and participated in the trial, he did not thereby waive his right to appeal from the decree of injunction.
Sales — Conditional Sales — Remedies of Vendor.
2. Where a contract for the conditional sale of personalty has been broken by the vendee, as by a sale of the property before title passed, the vendor may waive his right to recover possession, and sue for the value, treating the contract as executed.
[As to election of remedies on breach of conditional sale, see notes in 1 Ann. Cas. 268; 16 Ann. Cas. 1057.]
Exchange of Property — Real Property — Nature of Contract.
3. XJnder a contract for the exchange of lands of unequal value, the deed to the more valuable tract being placed in escrow till the balance of the price is paid, the results are the same as under a sale, reserving title in the vendor to secure the balance of the price, and a bond for title when the balance of the price, interest, and taxes are paid; the relation between the parties being analogous to that between mortgagor and mortgagee.
Vendor and Purchaser — Remedies of Vendor — Action for Waste.
4. A purchaser of land is entitled to cut a reasonable quantity of wood therefrom, and the vendor cannot maintain an action therefor without showing that, after it was cut, the premises would not be sufficient as security for the balance of the price.
Decided September 16, 1913.
On Motion to Dismiss.
(134 Pae. 1195.)
From Lane: Lawrence T. Harris, Judge.
Department 1. Statement by Mr. Justice Ramsey.
This is a suit by W. O. Thienes against I. M. Francis and A. M. Brewer. The facts are as follows:
I. M. Francis commenced an action at law in the Circuit Court of Lane County against W. C. Thienes to recover money. The defendant in that action, and plaintiff in this suit, upon filing an answer therein, also at the same time filed his complaint in equity, -in the nature of a cross-bill, setting up facts which he claimed required the interposition of a court of equity. The filing of the complaint in equity operated to stay the proceedings in the action at law under Section 390, L. O. L.
The suit in equity, being at issue, was tried and a decree therein was rendered on March 11, 1913. This decree enjoined the defendant Francis from prosecuting said'action at law for the value of the oats, wheat, hay and grain mentioned in the original complaint in said action.
I. M. Francis, the defendant herein, and plaintiff in said action, on March 27, 1913 (16 days after said decree was rendered), filed in said action at law his amended complaint. This amended complaint was so drawn as to conform to the decree referred to, supra. W. C. Thienes, the plaintiff in this suit and defendant in said action at law, filed his answer to said amended complaint on said 27th day of March, 1913, and the reply thereto was filed two days later. Said action was tried in the court below and a judgment therein, in favor of the plaintiff therein, for $383.75 was rendered by the court on April 8, 1913.
On July 15,1913, the plaintiff in this suit served and filed his notice of appeal from said decree, rendered on March 11, 1913, and on July 15, 1913, his undertaking of said appeal was served and' filed according to law. The transcript for the appeal in this suit was filed in this court on July 26, 1913. The respondent, I. M. Francis, filed a motion in this court for a dismissal of said appeal. This motion was submitted on written briefs without oral argument September 8, 1913, under the proviso of Eule 18 of the Supreme Court: 56 Or. 622 (117 Pac. xi).
Motion Denied.
Mr. Fred E. Smith and Mr. R. G. Francis, for the motion.
Mr. E. E. Slattery, contra.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Ramsey
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a motion for a dismissal of the appeal in this suit. The respondent Francis asks that this appeal be dismissed for the alleged reasons that, in the action at law referred to in the above statement of facts, the defendant therein and plaintiff in this suit filed his answer to the amended complaint in said action and voluntarily took part in the trial thereof, after the decree in this suit was rendered, without having first appealed this case, and because, as the defendant alleges, the plaintiff accepted the benefits of said decree and by so doing waived his right to appeal, etc.
The decree appealed from was rendered in the court below on the 11th day of March, 1913, and it enjoined the defendant in this suit from prosecuting said action at law against the plaintiff in this suit and defendant in said action to recover the value of the grain and hay mentioned in the complaint in said action. The defendant herein, and plaintiff in said action, a few days after said decree was rendered, filed his amended complaint in said action and served a copy thereof on the defendant therein. The defendant in said action filed his answer to said amended complaint, and the plaintiff therein filed his reply, and said action at law was tried, and a judgment thereon rendered on April 8, 1913. After the rendition of said judgment, the plaintiff in this suit appealed to this court from the decree rendered as stated.
The defendant herein claims that the defendant in said action, by filing his answer therein and participating in the trial thereof, waived his right to appeal this case. The decree appealed from held that the grain and hay mentioned in the complaint in the action were the property of the plaintiff in this suit and enjoined the defendant therein from prosecuting his said action to recover the value thereof, but that was the extent of the injunction. Said decree left the plaintiff in said action free to prosecute said action against the defendant therein for all things mentioned in the complaint excepting the hay and grain. The defendant therein had a right to defend said action, and by so doing he did not waive his right to appeal from the decree in this suit. He was under no obligation to waive his defense in said action or to notify the plaintiff therein of his intention to appeal from the decree in this case, until he was ready to take his appeal.
This is a suit by W. C. Thienes against I. M. Francis and A. M. Brewer. The facts are set forth in the opinion of the court.
Modified.
For appellant there was a brief and an oral argument by Mr. H. E. Slattery.
It was the plaintiff in said action, and not the defendant therein, who prosecuted said action to judgment, and he has no ground of complaint against the defendant therein for participating in said trial, or for appealing this case, or for accepting the results of said decree. The plaintiff herein had a legal right to appeal, and he has not waived that right by anything alleged in said motion.
The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.
Motion Denied.
Mr. Chief Justice. McBride, Mr. Justice Moore and Mr. Justice Burnett concur.