Legal Opinion

Moore v. Shell Oil Co.

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided March 1, 1932PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKelly, J.

Twenty-three assignments of error are set forth in defendant’s brief. The first assignment is, that the court erred in failing to grant defendant’s motion for nonsuit. Seven reasons are advanced in support of such motion:

1. It is urged that plaintiff’s failure to plead and prove his readiness and willingness to pay the contract price at the time and place of delivery is fatal to his right to recover. The amended complaint contains this allegation: That plaintiff “in all respects fully complied with his part of said contract and agreement in so far as he was allowed to do so by defendant.”…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Cold Blast Transp. Co. v. Kansas City Bolt & Nut Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1902
  2. Oscar Schlegel Manufacturing Co. v. Peter Cooper's Glue FactoryNew York Court of Appeals · 1921
  3. Velie Motor Car Co. v. Kopmeier Motor Car Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1912
  4. Shaw Wholesale Co. v. HackbarthOregon Supreme Court · 1921
  5. Alvord v. BanfieldOregon Supreme Court · 1917

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Buggs v. Ford Motor Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1940
  2. Howland v. Iron Fireman Manufacturing Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1949
  3. Howland v. Iron Fireman Mfg. Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1949
  4. Montgomery v. U. S. National BankOregon Supreme Court · 1960
  5. Geyen v. Time Oil Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1955

4 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