Case Name: TRUEBLOOD v. TALKINGTON
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1920-03-16
Citations: 95 Or. 527
Docket Number: 
Parties: TRUEBLOOD v. TALKINGTON.
Judges: McBride, C. J., and Johns and Bennett, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 95
Pages: 527–529

Head Matter:
Argued February 11,
affirmed March 16, 1920.
TRUEBLOOD v. TALKINGTON.
(188 Pac. 159.)
Appeal and Error — Conclusion of Trial Judge as to Weight of Testimony of Great Importance.
1. Conclusion by trial judge, in equity, who heard the witnesses and had opportunity to observe their demeanor, as to the weight of testimony, is of great importance.
From Polk: Harry H. Belt, Judge.
Department 2.
This is a suit to foreclose a thresherman’s lien. A decree was rendered in favor of plaintiff for a balance of $65.12. Defendant J. B. Talkington appeals. The issues involved are as follows: Plaintiff alleges that the reasonable value of threshing a certain crop of grain in August, 1918, is $100.
Defendants aver that the work was to be done by plaintiff for defendant Talkington at an agreed price of twenty-five cents per sack or $46.75. There is also a difference between the parties of $1.50 per day for seven and three-fourths days’ labor of defendant Talkington with his team performed for plaintiff. The grain was gathered from four fields and hauled by plaintiff to one setting near defendant Talkington’s barn. The work of moving the outfit to the place and threshing the grain consumed about eight and one-half hours’ time. Twenty men and nine teams were employed in the operation.
Affirmed.
For appellant there was a brief and an oral argument by Mr. A. G. Thompson.
For respondent there was a brief and an oral argument by Mr. Oscar Hayter.

Opinion:
BEAN, J.
~We concur in the finding of the learned trial judge, that the services were reasonably worth the sum of $100, and that after deducting the reasonable value of defendant Talkington's labor there was due plaintiff the amount decreed. It appears by a preponderance of the evidence that, owing to conditions prevailing that season, no uniform charges for threshing- per sack or bushel could safely be made; that no specific agreement was made by the parties as to price; and that the amount claimed by plaintiff was reasonable.
The trial judge heard the witnesses, and had an opportunity to observe their demeanor on the stand, and his conclusion as to the weight of the testimony is of great importance.
The decree of the lower court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
McBride, C. J., and Johns and Bennett, JJ., concur.