Litscher v. Alexander
Oregon Supreme Court
Prom Multnomah: Calvin U. Cante nbein, Judge. Statement by Mr. Justice Burnett. This is an action in the usual form by L. H. Litscher against J. T. Alexander, Ada P. Alexander and George H. McKee upon a promissory note indorsed to the plaintiff for value, in the regular course of business, before maturity. The answer admits the execution of the note, denies that there is anything due thereon, and traverses the allegation of indorsement.
Read the full summary
Prom Multnomah: Calvin U. Cante nbein, Judge. Statement by Mr. Justice Burnett. This is an action in the usual form by L. H. Litscher against J. T. Alexander, Ada P. Alexander and George H. McKee upon a promissory note indorsed to the plaintiff for value, in the regular course of business, before maturity. The answer admits the execution of the note, denies that there is anything due thereon, and traverses the allegation of indorsement. The substance of the affirmative matter in the answer is to the effect that the note was given to the indorser for part of the purchase price of real property…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Burnett
It is provided in Section 426, L. O. L., that “when judgment or decree is given for the foreclosure of any mortgage, hereafter executed, to secure payment of the balance of the purchase price of real property, such judgment or decree shall provide for the sale of the real property, covered by such mortgage, for the satisfaction of the judgment or decree given therein, and the mortgagee shall not be entitled to a deficiency judgment on account of such mortgage or note or obligation secured by the same.”
1. No bill of exceptions appears in the record. It is true that the judge has certified a…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Keady v. United Rys. Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1910
- Freeman v. TrummerOregon Supreme Court · 1907
- Hahn v. MackayOregon Supreme Court · 1912
- Lewis v. First National BankOregon Supreme Court · 1904
- Jennings v. FrazierOregon Supreme Court · 1905
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Hoag v. Washington-Oregon Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1914