Legal Opinion

Coolidge & McClaine v. Heneky

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided March 15, 1884PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

13y the Court,

Waldo, J.:

Counsel for both parties argued this case on the view that the doctrine of constructive notice was to govern the court in determining the question of fraudulent intent on the part of the grantees, Coolidge & McClaine. Counsel apparently had not seen the recent cases of Stearns v. Gage, 79 N. Y., 102, and Parker v. Conner 93 N. Y., 118, where the doctrine is held on the statute, of which ours is a copy, that where a valuable consideration had been paid, actual notice on the part of the grantee of the grantor’s fraudulent intent is necessary, to avoid the conveyances to…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Parker v. . ConnerNew York Court of Appeals · 1883
  2. Stearns v. . GageNew York Court of Appeals · 1879
  3. Avery v. JohannWisconsin Supreme Court · 1870

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Raalte v. HarringtonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1890
  2. Snyder v. City of AlbionMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
  3. Ball v. DantonOregon Supreme Court · 1913
  4. Garnier v. WheelerOregon Supreme Court · 1901
  5. Philbrick v. O'ConnorOregon Supreme Court · 1886

7 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