Legal Opinion

De Armond v. Moon

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided October 19, 1927PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCo Show, J.

The contract for the sale of the timber under which defendants are operating does not specify the manner of moving the logs from the premises. Any reasonable or workmanlike method which does no unnecessary injury to the land or damage to plaintiffs may be used by defendants.

Both plaintiffs and defendants rely upon the rules announced, in Kamm v. Normand, 50 Or. 9 (91 Pac. 448, 126 Am. St. Rep. 698, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 290). Plaintiffs claim the benefit of this language on page 14 of the official report:

“But a stream which is not such a highway cannot be made one by the use of dams or other…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Mendenhall v. Harrisburg Water Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1895
  2. Hallock v. SuitorOregon Supreme Court · 1900
  3. Kamm v. NormandOregon Supreme Court · 1907
  4. Flinn v. VaughnOregon Supreme Court · 1910
  5. Union Power Co. v. LichtyOregon Supreme Court · 1903

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Bennett v. CITY OF SALEMOregon Supreme Court · 1951
  2. York Et Ux v. StallingsOregon Supreme Court · 1959
  3. Jewett v. Deerhorn Enterprises, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1978

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API