Legal Opinion

Arthur v. Parish

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided June 27, 1935PublishedCited by 32 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBelt, J.

This is an action on a promissory note, payable on demand, dated June 20,1929, in the sum of $9,647.17. The execution and delivery of the note is admitted, but the amount due thereon is denied. As an affirmative answer the defendant alleges partial payment. The gravamen of the defense is thus set forth in the following paragraphs of the answer:

“L

That heretofore, at Portland, Oregon, said C. E. Forsyth, deceased, loaned money to one Wallace Huntington, taking Huntington’s note therefor; thereafter said note outlawed without being paid. This note is referred to in this answer as note No. 1.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Timmins v. HaleOregon Supreme Court · 1927
  2. American National Bank v. KerleyOregon Supreme Court · 1923
  3. Cicrich v. State Industrial Accident CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1933
  4. Karberg v. LeahyOregon Supreme Court · 1933

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. Hillman v. Northern Wasco County PUDOregon Supreme Court · 1958
  2. State v. AffeldOregon Supreme Court · 1988
  3. State v. FolkesOregon Supreme Court · 1944
  4. Beglau v. AlbertusOregon Supreme Court · 1975
  5. Godvig v. LopezOregon Supreme Court · 1949

27 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