Legal Opinion

Leach v. Helm

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided March 10, 1925PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBelt, J.

The complaint herein is far from being a model pleading, but,, in the absence of demurrer and after verdict, we believe it is not fatally defective. Every reasonable intendment is in its favor: Boord v. Kaylor, 100 Or. 366 (197 Pac. 296).

Defendants claim that the complaint is insufficient in that it fails to allege that plaintiff relied upon the representations in reference to the location and identity of the land in question. It is alleged by plaintiff that defendant E. W. Helm agreed to locate him on the land, and pursuant thereto did actually point out its boundaries to him, and that he…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Washington Gas Light Co. v. LansdenSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
  2. McCarthy v. De ArmitSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1881
  3. Boutwell v. MarrSupreme Court of Vermont · 1899
  4. Cawston v. SturgisOregon Supreme Court · 1896
  5. Moore v. DukeSupreme Court of Vermont · 1911

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Fredeen v. StrideOregon Supreme Court · 1974
  2. Holland v. LentzOregon Supreme Court · 1964
  3. Allister v. KnauppOregon Supreme Court · 1942
  4. Onita Pacific Corp. v. Trustees of BronsonOregon Supreme Court · 1992
  5. Onita Pacific Corp. v. Trustees of BronsonOregon Supreme Court · 1992

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

Powered by the Exa API