Miner v. Zweifel
Oregon Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtCoshow, J.
The defendant submits two reasons why the court erred in denying his motion for judgment for defendant on the pleadings. First, that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; second, that the pleadings taken together disclose on their face that the matter submitted to the court by the plaintiff had already been adjudicated adversely to her.
Defendant contends that the complaint states insufficient facts because it alleges an option merely on the part of Cone to sell to Berry Miner the tract of land; that it was optional with Berry Miner whether or not to…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Hough v. PorterOregon Supreme Court · 1909
- Rorvik v. North Pac. Lumber Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1920
- House v. JacksonOregon Supreme Court · 1893
- Caviness v. La Grande Irr. Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1911
- Home v. SellingOregon Supreme Court · 1919
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Continental Supply Co. v. MarshallCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1945
- Pedersen v. BarkhurstOregon Supreme Court · 1932
- Walker v. MACKEYOregon Supreme Court · 1952
- Walker v. MACKEYOregon Supreme Court · 1952