Legal Opinion

Sutherland v. Wickey

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided December 5, 1929PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCoshow, C. J.

Wickey, not having appealed, is conclusively deemed to be satisfied with the judgment. His failure to appeal is tantamount to a confession that he converted the property as alleged in the complaint: Coast Engine & Machine Works v. Barbee, 130 Or. 159 (279 P. 264).

Both parties have challenged the sufficiency of the complaint. The complaint alleges the capacity of plaintiff, the incorporation of the E. Henry Wemme Co.; the seizure of the stock in said corporation belonging to the alien legatees; the principal property belonging to said corporation, alleging the value thereof and consequently…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
  2. Claflin v. HousemanSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
  3. American Surety Company v. PaulySupreme Court of the United States · 1898
  4. Central Union Trust Co. of NY v. GarvanSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
  5. Whiteside v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1876

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Federal Deposit Insurance v. SmithOregon Supreme Court · 1999
  2. United States v. Board of Finance and RevenueSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
  3. Gulick v. NelsonOregon Supreme Court · 1945
  4. United States v. Board of Finance and RevenueSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951

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

Powered by the Exa API