Legal Opinion

Hyde v. Albert E. Peirce & Co.

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided February 8, 1934PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKelly, J.

This ease presents the question whether there is a legislative requirement to the effect that a broker’s bond should be conditioned upon such broker conducting his business in such a way as to conform to the Blue Sky Law and particularly to be free from fraudulent practice.

It is urged by defendants and amici curiae that prior to the enactment of chapter 166 of the 1931 Session Laws there was no such legislative requirement. In other words, these parties argue that the bond required by section 25-1309, Oregon Code 1930, is a qualifying bond and not an indemnity bond. It is said that by a…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Krumm v. . BeachNew York Court of Appeals · 1884
  2. Dowling v. Lancashire InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1896
  3. Spicer v. Benefit Ass'n of Railway EmployeesOregon Supreme Court · 1933
  4. Sharkey v. Burlingame Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1929
  5. Durham v. Cotton Mills.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Wheeler v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1954
  2. Holland v. LentzOregon Supreme Court · 1964
  3. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. HydeOregon Supreme Court · 1934
  4. Downs v. National Share Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1935
  5. Mayer v. RankinUtah Supreme Court · 1936

3 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