Legal Opinion

Parrish v. Stephens

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided December 15, 1853PublishedCited by 11 opinions

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

  1. President of Cincinnati v. Lessee of WhiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1832
  2. Trustees of Watertown v. Cowen & BaggNew York Court of Chancery · 1834
  3. Barclay v. Richard W. Howell's LesseeSupreme Court of the United States · 1832
  4. City of Georgetown v. THE ALEXANDRIA CANAL COMPANY, &C.Supreme Court of the United States · 1838
  5. Irwin v. DixionSupreme Court of the United States · 1850

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. State v. KoenneckeOregon Supreme Court · 1976
  2. Fleischner v. Citizens' Investment Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1893
  3. Duester v. AlvinOregon Supreme Court · 1915
  4. Lowell v. Pendleton Auto Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1927
  5. McCoy v. ThompsonOregon Supreme Court · 1917

6 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