Caples v. Steel
Oregon Supreme Court
Appeal from Multnomah County. The facts are stated in the opinion. The plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of specific performance of the contract in this case unless they were guilty of fraud, such as to prohibit the interference of a court of equity in their behalf. Fraud will not be presumed, and the burden of proof to establish fraud lies upon him who alleges it.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Multnomah County. The facts are stated in the opinion. The plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of specific performance of the contract in this case unless they were guilty of fraud, such as to prohibit the interference of a court of equity in their behalf. Fraud will not be presumed, and the burden of proof to establish fraud lies upon him who alleges it. “A person who knows that there is a mine in the land of another of which the latter is ignorant may nevertheless buy it without disclosing the existence of the mine.” (Harris v. Tyson, 24 Pa. St., 347.) “ Though the vendor is…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Kelly, C. J.:
The respondent, William Steel, on the twenty-seventh day of July, 1875, sold to the appellants, C. G. Capíes and T. A. McBride, a tract of land in Columbia county, containing one hundred and sixty acres, for three hundred and twenty dollars — twenty dollars being paid in cash, and two promissory notes given for the balance. At the same time an obligation was given by Steel to Capíes and McBride to convey the land by deed to them upon the payment of the notes. The first note was paid at maturity, and the second one deposited in the First National Bank of Portland for…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Seeger v. OdellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Bagley v. Mt. Bachelor, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 2014
- Carey v. Lincoln Loan Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2005
- Boelk v. NolanOregon Supreme Court · 1910
- Hanson v. ChamberlinSupreme Court of Colorado · 1925
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.