Case Name: H. S. WINN v. E. C. RANSOM et al.
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1927-06-07
Citations: 122 Or. 64
Docket Number: 
Parties: H. S. WINN v. E. C. RANSOM et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 122
Pages: 64–67

Head Matter:
Argued at Pendleton May 2,
affirmed June 7, 1927.
H. S. WINN v. E. C. RANSOM et al.
(255 Pac. 392.)
For appellant there was a brief over the names of Mr. John G. Hurspool and Mr. James H. E. Scott, with an oral argument by Mr. Hurspool.
For respondent there was a brief over the names of Messrs. Rader & Bean and Messrs. Watts & Prestbye, with an oral argument by Mr. Homer I. Watts.

Opinion:
COSHOW, J.
The evidence is very conflicting. Plaintiff relies exclusively on his own testimony and the testimony of his employee, Smith, and one other witness who worked with Smith in sinking the wells. The. burden of proof was on the plaintiff to establish the modification of the contract in writing between him and the defendant E. C. Eansom. The learned circuit judge saw the witnesses, observed their demeanor on the witness-stand and was in a better position to weigh the testimony than is this court. We have carefully read and considered the testimony and are persuaded that the learned Circuit Court found according to the weight of the testimony. It is unnecessary for us to decide the question raised by defendants regarding the right of plaintiff to sue for the value of the services rendered under the contract. It is admitted that he did not perform the contract. He claims that defendants breached it. In view of our finding that the plaintiff has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the contract was changed by agreement we have not considered the legal question raised by defendants. It is not contended that plaintiff performed his contract unless it was modified as he claims. Our conclusion is that the contract was not so modified. This conclusion requires an affirmance of the decree and it is so ordered. Aeeirmeu.