Legal Opinion
Jaloff v. United Auto Indemnity Exchange
Oregon Supreme Court
Decided December 7, 1926PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BBOWN, J. —
Defendants first raise this question: Was plaintiff required to make an election of remedies? That .question must be answered in the negative. The doctrine of election of remedies may be invoked where there are two or more coexisting remedies which are inconsistent with each other, so that the pursuit of one necessarily implies the negation of the other: 9 R. C. L., p. 958; 20 C. J., p. 2. Causes of action, like defenses thereto, “are inconsistent when one of them admits a fact, and the other denies the same fact.” Peters v. Queen City Ins. Co., 63 Or. 382 (126 Pac. 1005).
The…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- St. Louis Gaslight Co. v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1870
- Sutherlin v. BloomerOregon Supreme Court · 1907
- Sanders v. Frankfort Marine, Accident & Plate Glass InsuranceSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1904
- Fenton v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1899
- Fullerton v. United States Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1918
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- In Re Water Rights of Deschutes RiverOregon Supreme Court · 1929
- Commercial Casualty Ins. v. Fruin-Colnon Contracting Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1929
- Doherty v. Harris Pine Mills, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1957
- Godell v. JohnsonOregon Supreme Court · 1966
- Imperial Casualty & Indemnity Co. v. Morris and Gertrude Relder, and the Home Indemnity CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1962
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.