Legal Opinion

Lanham v. Reimann

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided May 8, 1945PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBailey, J.

This is an action for money had and received. The complaint, after setting forth that defendant at all the times therein mentioned “was and is a duly authorized, practicing real estate broker, authorized to act as such by virtue of the laws of the State of Oregon”, alleges that between the 27th day of April, 1943, and the 13th day of May of the same year the defendant became indebted to the plaintiffs in the sum of $300 “for money had and received by said defendant for the use and benefit of the plaintiffs herein.” In his answer defendant denies all of the allegations of the complaint except…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Hansbrough v. PeckSupreme Court of the United States · 1867
  2. Maffet v. Oregon & Cal. RailroadOregon Supreme Court · 1905
  3. Mitchell v. HughesOregon Supreme Court · 1916
  4. McGowen v. WestSupreme Court of Missouri · 1842
  5. York v. WashburnCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1904

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Golden v. GoldenOregon Supreme Court · 1975
  2. Chaffin v. RamseyOregon Supreme Court · 1976
  3. Brady Et Ux v. RayOregon Supreme Court · 1960
  4. Taylor v. GrantOregon Supreme Court · 1960
  5. Brady Et Ux v. RayOregon Supreme Court · 1960

2 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