Frederick v. Sherman
Oregon Supreme Court
From Multnomah: William N. Gatens, Judge. Department 1. This is an action to recover money. The complaint recites that on August 14, 1915, defendants induced plaintiffs to purchase from them the exclusive right to sell certain patented automobile tires in the State of Oregon, by falsely representing that the Davis-Fry Manufacturing Company was the owner of and had the exclusive right of manufacture and sale of such tires in all the territory of the United States.
Read the full summary
From Multnomah: William N. Gatens, Judge. Department 1. This is an action to recover money. The complaint recites that on August 14, 1915, defendants induced plaintiffs to purchase from them the exclusive right to sell certain patented automobile tires in the State of Oregon, by falsely representing that the Davis-Fry Manufacturing Company was the owner of and had the exclusive right of manufacture and sale of such tires in all the territory of the United States. That defendants, through said company, had the exclusive right to sell such tires in the State of Oregon, except as to certain…
1Opinion of the Court
BENSON, J. —
There are a number of assignments of error, but the conclusions reached by us render it unnecessary to consider any of them except the action of the trial court in denying defendants’ motion for a judgment of nonsuit, made at the conclusion of the hearing of plaintiffs’ testimony and after plaintiffs had rested. Plaintiffs ’ right to rescind the contract and recover the purchase money paid by them, is based, by *190the complaint, upon two grounds: (1) that defendants had nothing to sell, because, at the time of the transaction, the contract between the manufacturing company and the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- McGinn v. McGinnSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1929
- Parker v. Title & Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1956
- Chet L. Parker and Lois M. Parker v. Title and Trust Company, a Corporation Paul Winans, Ethel Winans, Ross M. Winans, Audubon Winans and Linnaeous Winans, Walter Stegmann v. Title and Trust Company, a Corporation Paul Winans, Ethel Winans, Ross M. Winans, Audubon Winans and Linnaeous WinansCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1956
- Palmiter v. HackettOregon Supreme Court · 1919