Parrish v. Stephens
Oregon Supreme Court
Supplementary Opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtWilliams, C. J.
This case was decided at the last term of this court, and a decree making the injunction perpetual rendered for the plaintiff. The facts were then stated. Application is now made for a re-hearing. Defendants urge that the decree heretofore made ought to be set aside, because no injunction can be made perpetual in a case of this kind until the title to the property in dispute is ascertained at law. Chancery, it appears to us, is quite as competent as a court at law to decide the questions involved in this case, and having once got possession of the matters in controversy, will proceed to…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- President of Cincinnati v. Lessee of WhiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1832
- Trustees of Watertown v. Cowen & BaggNew York Court of Chancery · 1834
- Barclay v. Richard W. Howell's LesseeSupreme Court of the United States · 1832
- City of Georgetown v. THE ALEXANDRIA CANAL COMPANY, &C.Supreme Court of the United States · 1838
- Irwin v. DixionSupreme Court of the United States · 1850
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- State v. KoenneckeOregon Supreme Court · 1976
- Fleischner v. Citizens' Investment Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1893
- Duester v. AlvinOregon Supreme Court · 1915
- Lowell v. Pendleton Auto Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1927
- McCoy v. ThompsonOregon Supreme Court · 1917
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.