Smith v. Hurley
Oregon Supreme Court
From Multnomah: Henry E. McGinn, Judge. Statement by Mr. Justice Bean. Two actions were commenced by Edward H. Smith against John W. Hurley. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $8,150, the defendant appeals.
Read the full summary
From Multnomah: Henry E. McGinn, Judge. Statement by Mr. Justice Bean. Two actions were commenced by Edward H. Smith against John W. Hurley. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $8,150, the defendant appeals. In the first action the plaintiff alleges that on March 9, 1912, the plaintiff being a cripple, unable to walk or to make any investigation or effort to sell either of his two patent rights on a wrench, transferred to the defendant a one-half interest in the same, with the understanding that he would use his best efforts to promote and sell the patent rights, for which he was to…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Bean
The main contention of the defendant upon this appeal is that there is no' evidence to support the finding made by the trial court that the value of a one-half interest in the patent rights was $8,500. The question of fraud is not contested upon this appeal.
1-3. It is conceded that the wrench, or thé patent rights, have no market value; therefore evidence other than that must of necessity be resorted to, to prove its value. It is the law in this state that, upon an appeal of a cause tried by the court without a jury, the findings of the court have the force and effect of a verdict of a jury,…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- The Albert DumoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Springer v. City of ChicagoIllinois Supreme Court · 1891
- Watson v. Milwaukee & Madison Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1883
- Parmenter v. . FitzpatrickNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
- Baker v. SeaveyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1895
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Galego v. KnudsenOregon Supreme Court · 1978
- Nordquist v. W. A. Simons Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1933
- Weigar v. SteenOregon Supreme Court · 1916