Title: Klebaum v. Mitchell
Citation: 246 Or. 196, 424 P.2d 219
Docket Number: N/A
State: Oregon
Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court
Date: March 1, 1967

Affirmed March 1, 1967.
William R. Thomas, Lebanon, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Morley, Thomas, Orona &amp; Kingsley, Lebanon.
*197 Myron L. Enfield, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were J. Ray Rhoten, and Rhoten, Rhoten &amp; Speerstra, Salem.
Before PERRY, Chief Justice, and McALLISTER, O'CONNELL, DENECKE and FORT, Justices.
AFFIRMED.
FORT, J. (Pro Tempore).
This case arose out of the purchase and sale of six truckloads of mint roots in 1962. Plaintiff, a farmer in Wapato, Washington, raised these roots. Defendant, a farmer in Linn County, Oregon, had dealt satisfactorily for such roots in 1961. Defendant in 1962 again contacted plaintiff by telephone for mint roots for that year's crop as well. All of the roots were delivered to the defendant, who planted them in 1962. He contended, however, the crop was of little, if any, value. Upon failure of defendant to pay for the roots, plaintiff filed an action for goods sold and delivered. Defendant filed a general denial and counter-claimed for damages resulting from an alleged breach of warranty of fitness for the purpose intended. The case was tried to a jury which returned a verdict for the plaintiff. Defendant appeals asserting an alleged error in the instruction of the court. The defendant requested the following instruction:
*198 The court gave the instruction as requested, eliminating therefrom the language "as of the time and place that they were delivered to the defendant."
1. It is elementary that the instructions of the court must be considered in their entirety. In Parmentier v. Ransom, 179 Or 17, at 24, 169 P2d 883 (1946), we said:
We have, accordingly, examined the instructions in their entirety.
2. Immediately following the instruction complained of, the jury was told:
and later the court stated:
The court fully instructed the jury on defendant's theories of the case, each time expressly including the requirement of delivery to the defendant.
We are of the opinion that the trial court sufficiently instructed the jury on this question. This assignment of error is without merit.
The remaining assignment of error was withdrawn at the time of oral argument. We do not consider it.
The judgment is affirmed.