Russell v. Lilienthal
Oregon Supreme Court
From Multnomah.: E. D. Shattuck, Judge. This is an action by J. M. Russell & Company against Ernest R. Lilienthal to recover for certain hops alleged to have been sold by the plaintiff to the defendant.
Read the full summary
From Multnomah.: E. D. Shattuck, Judge. This is an action by J. M. Russell & Company against Ernest R. Lilienthal to recover for certain hops alleged to have been sold by the plaintiff to the defendant. The case was tried without the intervention of a jury, and from the findings of fact it appears that on November 7, 1896, the plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract in writing, of which the following is a copy: “Portland, Oregon, Nov. 7th, ’96. For and in consideration for the covenant hereinafter performed, we have this day sold to Mr. H. Uchtmann, for account of Lilienthal, 265…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Bean
This action seems to have been based on the theory that all the hops had been accepted by the defendant, which he denies. There is some conflict in the findings of the court upon this issue. It is stated therein that on and prior to November 10, 1896, defendant had an opportunity to inspect all the hops, and did “accept the same,” and this finding favors such theory; but, upon the request of the defendant, additional and more specific findings were made, from which it appears that about the ninth of November the agents of plaintiff and defendant went to the farm of the grower of lot 68, in…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Cahen v. . PlattNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
- Morse v. BrackettMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1867
- Mansfield v. TriggMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873
- Hubbard v. GeorgeIllinois Supreme Court · 1868
3Cited by2 opinions
- Ross v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 1908
- Shotwell-Johnson Co. v. C. O. D. Tractor Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1923