Case Name: CHUNG v. STEPHENSON
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1907-03-26
Citations: 50 Or. 244
Docket Number: 
Parties: CHUNG v. STEPHENSON.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 50
Pages: 244–249

Head Matter:
Argued 6 February,
decided 26 March, 1907.
CHUNG v. STEPHENSON.
89 Pac. 386.
Pleading—Objections—Waiver.
1. Where a reply treated claims set up by defendant as counterclaims, and they were so regarded on the trial, though they were defectively pleaded, they should have been treated as issues, and' findings made thereon.
Set-Ore and Counterclaim—Claims Subject to Counterclaim.
2. Where a lessee of a hopyard sold his interest in the crop to the lessor and assigned his claim for the purchase money, the assignee took it subject to all counterclaims held by the lessor for advances made pursuant to the lease.
Landlord and Tenant—Advances—Action—Issues.
8. Where the lessee of a hopyard under a lease, whereby the lessor was to have a certain portion of the crop, assigned his interest, on an issue between the assignee'and the lessor as to the lessee’s liability for advancements, any question as to whether another was a joint owner or partner with the lessee was immaterial.
Appeal and Error—Presentation or Question Below—Exceptions —Failure to Make Findings.
i. Section 172, B. & O. Comp., provides that no exception need be taken or allowed to any decision on a matter of law when the same is entered in the journal, or made wholly on matters in writing or on file in the court. Held, that under the statute, and as findings in law actions are entered in the journal, the failure of the trial court to find on a counterclaim may be reviewed on appeal, though no exception was taken to such failure to find.
From Multnomah: John B. Cleland, Judge.
Statement by Ms. Justice Bakin.
This is an action to recover money, to which defendants counterclaimed. From judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Don Sing had a lease of the hopyard of defendants, paying one-third of the crop as rental. The defendants were to advance supplies to aid him in the cropping, the hops were to remain their property until sold, and defendants were to retain out of the price of the hops such sum as would compensate them for such advances. In June, 1904, Don needed money to aid him in caring for the hops, and defendants not having it to spare, authorized him to borrow $150 from plaintiff, and jointly signed a note with him to plaintiff therefor. At the same time defendants gave to plaintiff a duebill for $150 for a former loan he had made to Don, specifying therein that the same was to be paid out of the price of the hops when sold. Plaintiff alleges that on October 27, 1904, Don and Gee He sold to defendants their two-thirds interest in the hops raised that year at 29-J cents per pound, and thereafter assigned their .claim iherefor against defendants to plaintiff, and he seeks to recover on these three items—the note, the duebill and the price of the hops—giving credit for a $250 payment on the latter. Defendants deny the purchase of the hops, plead a tender of $158.50 in payment of the note, allege as a defense an account for advances of $1,093.69 ($1,041.44 of which is admitted), aver that at his request they paid $71.70 as premium for insurance on his interest in the hops, and, as a separate defense, claim damages in the sum of $2,750 for injury to the hop plants due to the negligent cultivation thereof. All these matters of defense are denied by the reply. The only exceptions taken at the trial were to the findings.
Reversed.
For appellant there was a brief and an oral argument by Mr. John M. Long.
For respondent there was a brief and an oral argument by Mr. George L. Chamberlain.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Eakin
delivered the opinion of the court.
1. These two items, the claim for damages for injury to the hop plants and for the insurance premium paid, are very defectively pleaded, but the reply treats them as counterclaims, and they ivere so regarded at the trial; therefore, unless otherwise disposed of in. that court, they are issues made by the pleadings, and the court should have made findings on such issues: Daly v. Larsen, 29 Or. 535 (46 Pac. 143).
2. Defendants admit their liability upon the note for principal and interest, and tendered the amount thereof into court. This constitutes payment, and it is clear that they are entitled to be reimbursed therefor out of the price of the hops. It is a counterclaim which defendants were entitled to plead as against Don Sing; for it was clearly understood between them that the signing of the note was a part of the advances to Don pro-A'ided for in the contract, and plaintiff took the claim subject to every counterclaim held by defendants at the time of the purchase. The amount tendered into court is a payment on the judgment to that extent, but only against that portion of the judgment based on the note. Thus defendants are not reimbursed out of the price of the hops for the amount paid on the noté. The court should have deducted from the price of the hops the amount of this note.
Decided 23 April, 1907.
89 Pac. 805.
The item of $50 claimed by defendants as payment appears from the evidence to be part of the $250 payment credited in the complaint. The lower court finds the fact correctly as to the $150 duebill, that it is to be paid out of the hops, and, as plaintiff owns the duebill and the claim for the price of the hops, it is proper to ignore it in the judgment, as defendants are not entitled to deduct it from the price of the hops, unless it has been paid by them.
3. Whether Gee He was a joint owner or partner with Don Sing in the crop of 1904 is immaterial. It could only be a question between themselves, and could not affect Don Sing's liability to defendants for advances under the lease.
For the errors here suggested, the cause will be reversed, and remanded to the court below for such further proceedings as may be deemed proper, not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed.