Weddle et al. v. Parrish

9 Citing cases

  1. Russell v. Sealed Power Corp.

    563 P.2d 712 (Or. 1977)   Cited 6 times

    * * *" Swetland Bldg. Co. v. Children's Home, 127 Or. 188, 192, 270 P. 927 (1928).See also Weddle v. Parrish, 135 Or. 345, 295 P. 454 (1931). It is also a general rule that any ambiguity in an agreement should be resolved against the party using the ambiguous language.

  2. West v. Brenner

    396 P.2d 115 (Idaho 1964)   Cited 22 times
    In West v. Brenner, 88 Idaho 44, 396 P.2d 115, this court held that even though the lease provided for its termination on a sale of the premises, if the power of sale is not properly exercised, the lease does not terminate.

    Morgan Morgan, Lewiston, for respondents. A lease terminable by sale of premises, may be terminated only in strict compliance with prescribed conditions. 51 C.J.S. Landlord and Tenant ยง 93, p. 661; 35 C.J. 1054-1055; Weddle v. Parrish, 135 Or. 345, 295 P. 454-455; Diamond Cattle Co. v. Clark, 52 Wyo. 265, 74 P.2d 857-866, 116 A.L.R. 912; 35 A.L.R. 518; 116 A.L.R. 932. If there is any doubt as to the effect or meaning of the terms and conditions, the lease is to be construed most strongly against the lessor and in favor of the lessee.

  3. Delta Farms v. Scappoose Drain. Dist

    291 P.2d 762 (Or. 1955)

    "In Weddle et al. v. Parrish, 135 Or. 345, 295 P. 454, we said: "* * * the word `crop' usually does not apply to grass growing on depastured lands: Moore v. Hope Natural Gas Co., 76 W. Va. 649, 656 ( 86 S.E. 564)."

  4. McCreight v. Girardo

    287 P.2d 414 (Or. 1955)   Cited 15 times

    "Any renewal" as used in the lease in my opinion implies more than one renewal. If the lessors had intended only one renewal, it was within their power to have the lease so written. Where a lease is doubtful or uncertain as to its meaning, it will be construed in the tenant's favor. Weddle v. Parrish, 135 Or. 345, P. 295, 454. Construing the lease in its entirety and considering the unexplained alteration of the lease in a clause pregnant with significance, I am of the opinion that the parties intended successive renewals of the lease, until the $100 a month rental payment absorbed the $26,000 purchase price, unless the option was sooner exercised.

  5. Holbrook v. Cont. Oil Co.

    73 Wyo. 321 (Wyo. 1955)   Cited 17 times
    In Holbrook v. Continental Oil Co., 278 P.2d at 798, the landowner, a patentee under the Act, brought suit against the mineral lessee to recover damages for unauthorized possession of the land to construct dwelling houses for employees of the lessee, the death of a calf, and destruction of the water supply.

    The plaintiffs and appellants may not sue for damages to the land but only for injuries to agricultural improvements or agricultural crops. In Weddle v. Parrish, 135 Or. 345, 295 P. 454, 456, the court said: "The word `crop' in its more general signification is said to mean all products of the soil that are grown and raised and gathered annually during a single season.

  6. Czerner v. Kerby

    207 P.2d 531 (N.M. 1949)   Cited 2 times

    Their position is untenable when viewed in the light of the contract. Appellants strongly rely upon Weddle v. Parrish, 135 Or. 545, 295 P. 454 to support the proposition that they are entitled to the benefit of the pastures. There the lease in question was principally a grass lease intended to be used for late pasturing of sheep.

  7. Diamond Cattle Co. v. Clark

    74 P.2d 857 (Wyo. 1938)   Cited 5 times

    See E. D. Metcalf Co. v. Gilbert, 19 Wyo. 331, 116 P. 1017; Gartner v. Corwine, 57 Oh. St. 246, 48 N.E. 945. While it is said that a clause in a lease giving the lessor the option to cancel the contract before the expiration of the term should be construed strictly against the lessor (Woods v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co., 205 Ala. 236, 87 So. 681, 27 A.L.R. 834; Weddle v. Parrish, 135 Or. 345, 295 P. 454; 35 C.J. 1055; 16 R.C.L. 699, ยง 188), and there are dicta indicating that the word "sale" as used in a clause like that in the case at bar, means a sale completed by conveyance of title (Ela v. Bankes, 37 Wis. 89; Aydlett v. Pendleton, 114 N.C. 1; Lewis v. Agoure, 8 Cal.App. 146, 96 P. 327; Cross v. Ramdullah, 274 Fed. 762), there are a number of cases holding that an agreement of sale as distinguished from a completed sale is sufficient. See Luse v. Elliott, 204 Ia. 378, 213 N.W. 410, and cases cited.

  8. Simpson v. McCormmach

    866 P.2d 489 (Or. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 2 times

    Similarly, the parties appear also to dispute whether a lessor of farm property can have any emblement rights in crops that her tenant rather than she has caused to be planted. See Weddle et al. v. Parrish, 135 Or. 345, 349, 295 P. 454 (1931). We note those issues only to emphasize that we need not and do not resolve them.

  9. Aetna Cas. S. Co. v. Brethren Mut Ins. Co.

    38 Md. App. 197 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1977)   Cited 23 times
    Failing to define "farming" in a policy created ambiguity

    " Id. at 424. In Weddle v. Parrish, 295 P. 454, 455 (Ore., 1931), it was held that the "management of live stock, such as depasturing and feeding sheep is embraced within the term `agriculture' or `farming'." In Porter v. Yakima County, 77 Wn. 299, 137 P. 466 (1914), a case involving the imposition of personal property taxes, the Supreme Court of Washington said that, "A tract of land devoted to the breeding, grazing, shearing, and lambing of sheep is a farm as much as a tract that is devoted to the growing of grain or to diversified farming.