account claim in Oregon

2020According to Portfolio, however, ORS 15.360 sup- plies no mechanism for choosing Virginia law as the “most appropriate” to resolve the substance of the account-stated Cite as 366 Or 355 (2020) 365 claim because ORS 15.360 describes how to choose between “apparently conflicting laws.” Portfolio emphasizes that Sanders, in opposing the account-stated claim, asserts that “Virginia law is the same” as Oregon’s with respect to the “essential allegations of an account stated claim.” That assertion, Portfolio argues, amounts to a concession that there are no “apparently conflicting laws” with respect

1992See also Sesow v. Swearingen, 552 P.2d 705 (Okl.1976); Ideal Builders Hardware Co. v. Cross Const. Co., Inc., 491 S.W.2d 228 (Tex.Civ.App.1972).

1992See also Sesow v. Swearingen, 552 P2d 705 (Okla 1976); Ideal Builders Hardware Co. v. Cross Const. Co., Inc., 491 SW2d 228 (Tex Civ App 1972).

1992In Greer Limestone Co. v. Nestor, 175 W.Va. 289 , 332 S.E.2d 589 (1985), the West Virginia Supreme Court held that the "UCC Statute of Limitations supersedes any general statute of limitations with regard to transactions involving the sale of goods" and held that the UCC applies to an account stated claim relating to such transactions.

1992In Greer Limestone Co. v. Nestor, 332 SE2d 589 (W Va 1985), the West Virginia Supreme Court held that the “UCC Statute of Limitations supersedes any general statute of limitations with regard to transactions involving the sale of goods” and held that the UCC applies to an account stated claim relating to such transactions.

1926The plaintiff should have been nonsuited at the trial, and on this account the rule must be made absolute.” In Haviland v. Halstead, 34 N. Y. 643 , according to the syllabus, it was held: “An action for the breach of a contract of marriage, between parties in this state, cannot be maintained where one of the parties was, by law, incapable of entering into the marriage relation at the time of making the contract.” There, as here, the arrangement was that the woman in the case was to go to New Jersey where they would be married, but the court said: “ * * Even if it should be conceded that, if th

1922It has often been held in this state that: “An account containing a lumping charge, in which is mingled an item for which no lien is given, will not support a lien; and the defect cannot be cured by oral evidence, by means of which the items for which a lien is given may be separated from those for which a lien is not given.” Williams v. Toledo Coal Co., 25 Or. 426 ( 36 Pac. 159 , 42 Am.

1922It has often been held in this state that: “An account containing a lumping charge, in which is mingled an item for which no lien is given, will not support a lien; and the defect cannot be cured by oral evidence, by means of which the items for which a lien is given may be separated from those for which a lien is not given.” Williams v. Toledo Coal Co., 25 Or. 426 ( 36 Pac. 159 , 42 Am.

1897And so it is with drawing the warrant for the payment of the claim or demand: High on Extraordinary Remedies, §§ 101, 104, 105; Fowler v. Peirce, 2 Cal. 165 ; Bryan v. Cattell, 15 Iowa, 538 ; Swann v. Buck, 40 Miss. 268, 291 .

1897And so it is with drawing the warrant for the payment of the claim or demand: High on Extraordinary Remedies, §§ 101, 104, 105; Fowler v. Peirce, 2 Cal. 165 ; Bryan v. Cattell, 15 Iowa, 538 ; Swann v. Buck, 40 Miss. 268, 291 .

1897We have seen (Shattuck v. Kincaid, 31 Or. 379 , 49 Pac. 758 ), “that when the nature and amount of services rendered the state are definitely fixed and ascertained, and the compensation therefor is regulated by law, such as the salaries of public officers, the duty of auditing or allowing the account or claim for such services becomes a mere ministerial act, the performance of which may be required by mandamus.” See cases therein cited.

1897We have seen (Shattuck v. Kincaid, 31 Or. 379 , 49 Pac. 758 ), “that when the nature and amount of services rendered the state are definitely fixed and ascertained, and the compensation therefor is regulated by law, such as the salaries of public officers, the duty of auditing or allowing the account or claim for such services becomes a mere ministerial act, the performance of which may be required by mandamus.” See cases therein cited.

1897And so it is with drawing the warrant for the payment of the claim or demand: High on Extraordinary Remedies, §§ 101, 104, 105; Fowler v. Peirce, 2 Cal. 165 ; Bryan v. Cattell, 15 Iowa, 538 ; Swann v. Buck, 40 Miss. 268, 291 .