Carroll v. Nodine
Oregon Supreme Court
From Union: Robert Eakin, Judge. This’is an action by "W. T. Carroll to recover from Eliza Nodine upon an implied warranty on the sale without recourse by defendant to plaintiff of a certain promissory note made and executed by Louisa A. Hudson and Thomas R. Hudson to Fred Nodine on August 21, 1878, for the sum of $150, with interest at 10 per cent per annum, and by the latter indorsed to the defendant.
Read the full summary
From Union: Robert Eakin, Judge. This’is an action by "W. T. Carroll to recover from Eliza Nodine upon an implied warranty on the sale without recourse by defendant to plaintiff of a certain promissory note made and executed by Louisa A. Hudson and Thomas R. Hudson to Fred Nodine on August 21, 1878, for the sum of $150, with interest at 10 per cent per annum, and by the latter indorsed to the defendant. The note was secured by a mortgage upon real property in the City of Union, Oregon. Several payments were indorsed thereon, including one of $7, of date October 25, 1893. The complaint…
1Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice "Wolverton,
after stating the facts, delivered the opinion of the court.
There are but two errors relied upon for reversal. It is first contended that the plaintiff, at the time he purchased the note, agreed and guarantied that the defendant should never be held liable thereon in any capacity, and that such an agreement constitutes a valid defense to the action. The question arose upon an attempt to prove the express warranty set up in the answer by parol, which the court refused to permit, under the idea that the contract, being in writing, could not be thus varied. The theory of…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Chicago City v. RobbinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1863
- Drennan v. BunnIllinois Supreme Court · 1888
- Giffert v. WestWisconsin Supreme Court · 1873
- Davis v. SmithSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1887
- Stockton Savings & Loan Society v. GiddingsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Astoria v. Astoria & Columbia River R.Oregon Supreme Court · 1913
- Nickell v. BradshawOregon Supreme Court · 1919
- Queensboro Nat. Bank of City of New York v. KellyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1931
- Calabrese v. Rexall Drug & Chemical Co.California Court of Appeal · 1963
- Overton v. TarkingtonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1959
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.