Kight v. Orchard-Hays
Oregon Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
COSHOW, O. J.
1. Defendants rely upon the well-established legal principle that an agent cannot serve both parties to a sale in which their interests conflict. The legal principle is well stated in 1 Mechem on Agency (2 ed.), Sections 178, 1588, 1589, 1590. Defendants cite a large number of authorities in support of their position, but we believe it unnecessary to cite further authorities on a principle as well established as is the law controlling double agency as stated above in Mechem.
2. It is equally well settled that a person may act as agent for two parties with the consent of the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Bonelli v. BurtonOregon Supreme Court · 1912
- Jameson v. ColdwellOregon Supreme Court · 1892
- Thomson v. SilsbyOregon Supreme Court · 1927
3Cited by6 opinions
- Howell v. Oregonian Publishing Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1987
- Share v. WILLIAMS ET UXOregon Supreme Court · 1955
- Ruff v. BoltzOregon Supreme Court · 1968
- Brunton v. PowellOregon Supreme Court · 1974
- Collins v. CollinsOregon Supreme Court · 1955
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.