Legal Opinion

Brown v. Jones

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided March 14, 1929PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BEAN. J.

By appropriate pleadings and objections and exceptions, defendants contend that plaintiff’s lessor is the real party in interest and that plaintiff has no right to maintain the action. It is further contended by defendants that the court erred in permitting the plaintiff to introduce testimony in reference to or recover for any injury to his property other than such value as they possessed for grazing purposes.

As to the first proposition: Section 27, Or. L., provides that every action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest, except as otherwise provided in…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Edwards v. PerkinsOregon Supreme Court · 1879
  2. First National Bank of Clay Centre v. BeegleSupreme Court of Kansas · 1894
  3. Estep v. BaileyOregon Supreme Court · 1919
  4. Peters v. JohnsonOregon Supreme Court · 1928
  5. Adam v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1909

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Murray v. HelfrichOregon Supreme Court · 1934
  2. James v. HenryDistrict Court, Virgin Islands · 1957
  3. Hollin v. Libby, McNeill & LibbyOregon Supreme Court · 1969
  4. Falk v. AmsberryCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1981
  5. Fieger v. Imperial Skating RinkOregon Supreme Court · 1934

1 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