Case Name: CITY OF ALBANY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. UNIFIED CONTRACTORS, INC. et al, Defendants-Appellants, J. W. COPELAND YARDS et al, Defendants-Respondents
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1977-12-05
Citations: 31 Or. App. 1051
Docket Number: No. 45873, CA 7683
Parties: CITY OF ALBANY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. UNIFIED CONTRACTORS, INC. et al, Defendants-Appellants, J. W. COPELAND YARDS et al, Defendants-Respondents.
Judges: Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Thornton and Johnson, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 31
Pages: [1051]–[1053]

Head Matter:
Argued November 21,
affirmed December 5, 1977
CITY OF ALBANY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. UNIFIED CONTRACTORS, INC. et al, Defendants-Appellants, J. W. COPELAND YARDS et al, Defendants-Respondents.
(No. 45873, CA 7683)
571 P2d 924
Jack H. Cairns, Portland, argued the cause and submitted the brief for appellants.
Frederick L. Decker, Albany, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent J. W. Copeland Yards.
Warren Gill, Lebanon, argued the cause and submitted the brief for respondent L. D. VanOver Construction, Inc.
No appearance for respondent City of Albany.
Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Thornton and Johnson, Judges.
PER CURIAM.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This case involves the disposition of the final payment, approximately $15,000, on a sewer construction contract for the city of Albany in which appellant Unified Contractors, Inc. was the general contractor and respondents were suppliers to a now bankrupt subcontractor. The city brought this suit seeking adjudication of the relative rights of all defendants including appellants and respondents. The trial court awarded respondent J. W. Copeland Yards $476.14, and respondent L. D. VanOver Construction, Inc. $1,202.79, together with interest, and the remainder of the final payment to appellant. The only argument advanced by appellants consisted of a quotation from a section of an encyclopedia. Respondents correctly point out that the quotation is taken out of context. The section when read in its entirety supports respondents' position. We are satisfied that the trial court reached the correct result.
Affirmed.