Legal Opinion

Hollingsworth v. GENERAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION

District Court, D. Oregon

Decided January 31, 1939No. 12790PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

McCOLLOCH, District Judge.

The question for decision is whether the established rule in this court of trying fraud “in the consideration” of releases without a jury must be changed, because of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188, 114 A.L.R. 1487. It is contended that the holding of Olston v. Oregon Water Power & R. Co., 52 Or. 343, 96 P. 1065, 97 P. 538, 20 L.R.A.,N.S., 915, to the effect that fraud in the consideration, as well as in the execution of a release, even when under seal, is a legal question, triable by jury, furnishes a rule of substantive law…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  2. Olston v. Oregon Water Power & Ry. Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1908
  3. DeVall v. DeVallOregon Supreme Court · 1910
  4. Radio Corp. of America v. Raytheon Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1935
  5. Kowalski v. Chicago G. W. Ry. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Iowa · 1898

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Ettelson v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1943
  2. Larsen v. PowellDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 1954
  3. Occidental Life Ins. Co. of California v. KielhornDistrict Court, W.D. Michigan · 1951
  4. Canning v. Star Publishing Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1956
  5. Beagle v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.District Court, W.D. Washington · 1940

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