Legal Opinion

Pennick v. American National Bank

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided October 2, 1928PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCoshow, J.

There is conflict in the authorities regarding the admissibility of evidence offered 'for the purpose of showing that a party to the written contract is not the real party in interest but was acting for a principal at the time he entered into and signed the contract. This state, however, early adopted the principle that parol evidence was admissible to show that a party not named in nor a subscriber to a contract is the real party in interest and is bound thereby. This principle was first announced in Barbre v. Goodale, 28 Or. 465, 470 (43 Pac. 378). It is seriously contended by defendant…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Barbre v. GoodaleOregon Supreme Court · 1896
  2. Black v. SippyOregon Supreme Court · 1888
  3. Pulkrabek v. Bankers' Mortgage Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1925
  4. Blomquist v. JenningsOregon Supreme Court · 1926
  5. Wm. Brown & Co. v. DudaOregon Supreme Court · 1919

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Weiss and Hamilton v. GumbertOregon Supreme Court · 1951
  2. Doyle v. ChladekOregon Supreme Court · 1965
  3. Ritchie v. MundonOregon Supreme Court · 1974
  4. Doyle v. ChladekOregon Supreme Court · 1965
  5. Weiss and Hamilton v. GumbertOregon Supreme Court · 1951

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API