Legal Opinion
Hammond v. Oregon & California Railroad
Oregon Supreme Court
Decided January 5, 1926PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBean, J.
In passing upon the demurrer involved in the former appeal, this court, in view of the acts of Congress, as interpreted by the federal courts regarding the public policy indicated, stated:
“If it be conceded that the plaintiffs had constructive notice of the provisos as contained in the granting acts referred to, then it would seem that the federal court and Congress deemed the plaintiffs to be not in pari delicto with the defendant, and therefore entitled to relief.”
By its first defense interposed, the defendant presented the contention that at the time the contract was entered into, the…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Harris v. RunnelsSupreme Court of the United States · 1851
- United States v. California & Oregon Land Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Oregon & California Railroad v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Brandt v. FosterSupreme Court of Iowa · 1857
- Henderson v. Henderson's ExecutorsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1850
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Larsen v. Union Bank, N.A.District Court, S.D. Florida · 2011
- In re Checking Account Overdraft LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. Florida · 2015
- Elliott v. ThompsonIdaho Supreme Court · 1941
- Booth-Kelly Lumber Co. v. Oregon & California RailroadOregon Supreme Court · 1926
- Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. PlestcheeffCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1938
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.