184 P. 258 | Or. | 1919
The assignments of error are three. The first two are based upon the admission of the testimony of the two defendants respecting the custom alluded to in their answer. The third is predicated upon the entry of judgment against the plaintiff and in favor of the defendants for the costs and disbursements incurred. In effect, the testimony of E. A. Larson, defendant, on the subject of custom was that it had been the practice in the vicinity where he resided and the potatoes in question were produced, for the buyer to furnish the cars for their transportation, in all cases that he knew of, and that the farmers there raise small tracts of potatoes and the buyer orders the car and informs the grower when he gets the car there ready for loading. The testimony of the other defendant was practically the same.
“Hence, proof of usage or custom, if any prevailed, is admissible to supply these details upon which the contract is silent; if such usage or custom was known to the plaintiffs at the time the contract was made.”
“A custom within the meaning of the law, if general, is incorporated into and becomes a part.of each contract to which it is applicable; if local, of every contract made by parties having knowledge of or bound to know its existence.”
There was no error in receiving the testimony of the defendants about the custom.
The judgment is affirmed. Affirmed.