Legal Opinion

Hildebrand & Posner v. Bloodsworth, Whitley & Ridenour

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided March 10, 1885PublishedCited by 10 opinions

Umatilla County. Defendants appeal. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtLord, J.

This was an action for the recovery of money.' In substance the facts are that for a longtime prior to December 1, *771883, and during that year, S. E. Bloodsworth and one L. Shaw were partners in the business of retail liquor dealers at Pendleton, Oregon, under the firm name of Bloodsworth & Shaw; that during that year the said firm became, and on the 1st day of December, 1883, were indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $934; that on said 1st day of December, Shaw, for a valuable consideration, sold and delivered to his partner Bloodsworth all his interest in the partnership business, and…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Leonard v. VredenburghNew York Supreme Court · 1811
  2. Starr v. EarleIndiana Supreme Court · 1873
  3. Rix v. AdamsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1837

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Arment v. Yamhill CountyOregon Supreme Court · 1896
  2. Oregon Home Builders v. CrowleyOregon Supreme Court · 1918
  3. Thompson Optical Institute v. ThompsonOregon Supreme Court · 1925
  4. Keady v. United Rys. Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1910
  5. Dolph v. SpeckartOregon Supreme Court · 1919

5 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