Legal Opinion · Dissent

Burgdorfer v. Thielemann

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided February 18, 1936Published

1DissentRossman, J.

I dissent from the portion of the opinion of the majority concerning the statute of frauds. In my opinion, the record in this action presents no occasion for considering or applying that statute. The plaintiff does not claim that the defendant promised to discharge the $500 mortgage on the Collins View property a year or more after the transaction was consummated, but swore that the defendant promised to discharge it at once. The note was payable in monthly installments of $25. He, the defendant, was the maker of the note and the signer of the mortgage. The answer admits that the defendant…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Dung v. . ParkerNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
  2. Cagger v. . LansingNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
  3. Bickel v. WessingerOregon Supreme Court · 1911
  4. Linebarger v. DevineNevada Supreme Court · 1923
  5. Hedges v. StrongClackamas County Circuit Court, Oregon · 1868

2 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