Legal Opinion

Kight v. Orchard-Hays

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided February 19, 1929PublishedCited by 6 opinions

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

  1. Bonelli v. BurtonOregon Supreme Court · 1912
  2. Jameson v. ColdwellOregon Supreme Court · 1892
  3. Thomson v. SilsbyOregon Supreme Court · 1927

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Howell v. Oregonian Publishing Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1987
  2. Share v. WILLIAMS ET UXOregon Supreme Court · 1955
  3. Ruff v. BoltzOregon Supreme Court · 1968
  4. Brunton v. PowellOregon Supreme Court · 1974
  5. Collins v. CollinsOregon Supreme Court · 1955

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