Legal Opinion

Medak v. DePrez

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided November 13, 1963PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGoodwin, J.

The plaintiffs, payees and holders of a demand promissory note, recovered judgment against the makers of the note. The makers appeal.

The note was given as earnest money, subject to forfeiture, in connection with an offer to purchase certain real estate. The offer was accepted by the sellers, but the transaction was never consummated. The payees of the note were the real estate brokers who had been employed to sell certain property. The sellers of the property were not made parties below. There is no substantial dispute about the making or the delivery of the note.

The principal issue is…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Sturgis v. BakerOregon Supreme Court · 1903
  2. State v. DouglasOregon Supreme Court · 1910
  3. Gosslin v. MartinOregon Supreme Court · 1910
  4. Hill v. McCrowOregon Supreme Court · 1918
  5. West & Wheeler v. LongtinWashington Supreme Court · 1922

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Mader v. JamesWyoming Supreme Court · 1976
  2. Huszar v. Certified Realty CompanyOregon Supreme Court · 1973
  3. Banif Corporation v. BlackCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1973
  4. Reagan v. Certified Realty Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1980
  5. Olpin v. Grove Finance CompanyUtah Supreme Court · 1974

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API