Legal Opinion

Holmes v. Burlingame Co.

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided November 17, 1931PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.

The plaintiff asserts that the trial court erred in finding that she had lost her right to rescind the contract by inaction or by affirmative action in relation to the property after she discovered the fraud.

The testimony of the plaintiff, upon which the trial court based its decision, is, in part, as follows:

“Q. What was it made you buy out there? * * * A. Mr. Scatterday’s and especially Mr. Nosier’s statement that it was going to be an opportunity to make a profit soon. Mr. Nosier said that he knew that I could make five hundred dollars on that in six months. I had said something to Mr.…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Scott v. WaltonOregon Supreme Court · 1898
  2. Schiffer v. . DietzNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
  3. Sharkey v. Burlingame Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1929
  4. McCabe v. KelleherOregon Supreme Court · 1918
  5. Cameron v. Edgemont Investment Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1931

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Gamble v. BeahmOregon Supreme Court · 1953
  2. Keller v. LONSDALE ET UXOregon Supreme Court · 1959
  3. Edwards v. WilcoxenOregon Supreme Court · 1977
  4. Ross v. CARLYLE ET UXOregon Supreme Court · 1959
  5. Youmans v. Edgemont Investment Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1932

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

Powered by the Exa API