From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sheridan v. Pac. Tel. and Tel. Co.

Oregon Supreme Court
Mar 17, 1954
267 P.2d 1104 (Or. 1954)

Opinion

Argued March 3, 1954

Affirmed March 17, 1954

Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County.

MacCORMAC SNOW, Judge.

Alton John Bassett, of Portland, argued the cause and filed briefs for appellant.

Cleveland C. Cory, of Portland, argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.

Before WARNER, Acting Chief Justice, and LUSK, BRAND and PERRY, Justices.


AFFIRMED.


This is an action for damages predicated upon the defendant's failure to print correctly in plaintiff's advertisement appearing in the classified section of defendant's telephone directory the telephone number of her place of business. We are not supplied with a bill of exceptions. Depending solely upon defendant's brief, we find that the only error disclosed therein arises out of an alleged instruction which plaintiff says had the effect of limiting defendant's liability under the advertising contract to the cost thereof. On an annual basis this would be $87. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff in that amount. From the ensuing judgment, plaintiff appeals.

In the absence of a bill of exceptions, our consideration must be confined to the sufficiency of the pleadings, the findings of the trial court or to whether the pleadings or findings support the judgment. Boice v. Boice, 196 Or. 346, 248 P.2d 1069; La Grande Air Service v. Tyler et al., 193 Or. 329, 330, 237 P.2d 503, and cases there cited. Since the record is sufficient in this limited area of inquiry, the judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

Sheridan v. Pac. Tel. and Tel. Co.

Oregon Supreme Court
Mar 17, 1954
267 P.2d 1104 (Or. 1954)
Case details for

Sheridan v. Pac. Tel. and Tel. Co.

Case Details

Full title:SHERIDAN v. THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY

Court:Oregon Supreme Court

Date published: Mar 17, 1954

Citations

267 P.2d 1104 (Or. 1954)
267 P.2d 1104

Citing Cases

Sherman v. Bankus

Since there is no bill of exceptions we are unable to consider plaintiff's third and fourth assignments of…

McCarty v. Seaboard F. M. Ins. Co.

As the sole ground of the motion is newly discovered evidence and the evidence is not here, the assignment of…