Olshen v. Kaufman
Oregon Supreme Court
1DissentO’Connell, J.
The majority opinion treats ORS 126.335 as a legislative declaration that a spendthrift’s contracts are voidable per se irrespective of the inequity which may result to the person with whom the spendthrift deals. It is not necessary to so construe the statute. It is more reasonable to assume that the legislature intended the word “voidable” to have a meaning similar to that attributed to it in other areas of the law involving a person’s competency to contract. In those areas it is generally held that even though a contract with an incompetent person, such as an infant, is voidable, the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Rice v. . ButlerNew York Court of Appeals · 1899
- General Casmir Pulaski Building & Loan Ass'n v. Provident Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
- La Rosa ex rel. La Rosa v. NicholsSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1918
- Petit v. ListonOregon Supreme Court · 1920
- Berglund v. American Multigraph Sales Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.