Frederick & Nelson v. Bard
Oregon Supreme Court
From. Multnomah: Henry E. McGinn, Judge. Department 2. Statement by Mr. Justice Burnett. This is an action by Frederick & Nelson, a corporation, against W. H. Bard, and is the second appeal in this case.
Read the full summary
From. Multnomah: Henry E. McGinn, Judge. Department 2. Statement by Mr. Justice Burnett. This is an action by Frederick & Nelson, a corporation, against W. H. Bard, and is the second appeal in this case. The following statement is adapted from the former opinion reported in 66 Or. 259 (134 Pac. 318) : “The plaintiff, Frederick & Nelson, a corporation, declares in the usual form upon two promissory notes executed and delivered to it by W. H. Bard, amounting together to $750 of principal, besides interest, as stated in the complaint. The answer admits the actual execution of the notes, but…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Burnett
It is manifest from the facts in the case that the essence of the dispute between the parties was whether the defendant was entitled to commissions as he claimed and, if so, whether the plaintiff had given him credit in the settlement resulting in the execution of the promissory notes upon which the action was brought. There is no dispute but what the defendant signed the notes as stated. Under such circumstances, as disclosed by the pleadings, the utmost possible verdict that could have been rendered for the defendant was the difference between the amounts of principal and interest due on…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Matter of Application of La DueCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
- De Vall v. De VallOregon Supreme Court · 1911
- Smith Typewriter Co. v. McGeorgeOregon Supreme Court · 1914
3Cited by16 opinions
- State v. MainsOregon Supreme Court · 1983
- Beglau v. AlbertusOregon Supreme Court · 1975
- Archambeau v. EdmunsonOregon Supreme Court · 1918
- Pullen v. EugeneOregon Supreme Court · 1915
- King v. DittoOregon Supreme Court · 1933
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.