Legal Opinion

Wright v. Morton

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided March 12, 1928PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRossman, J.

It is unnecessary to cite authorities in support of the statement that the agreement of the parties wherein the defendants agreed to purchase the plaintiff’s wheat was protected by the parol evidence rule. It is this written instrument .upon which the plaintiff founds this action. This document describes the article sold by using this language: “consisting of 3,581 bushels and 31 pounds of club wheat as shown by said first party’s warehouse receipt.” This receipt also stated the quantity as 3,581 bushels and 31 pounds. The warehouse receipts were likewise subject to the parol evidence rule:…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Choctaw Lumber Co. v. GilmoreSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1902
  2. Hirsch v. Salem Mills Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1902

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Bandy v. Norris, Beggs & SimpsonOregon Supreme Court · 1960
  2. Kroschel v. Martineau Hotels, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1933
  3. Ornduff v. HobbsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2015
  4. Coos Bay Lumber Co. v. CollierCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1939
  5. Ausplund v. HaralampusOregon Supreme Court · 1951

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