Legal Opinion
Miller v. Ashley & Rumelin
Oregon Supreme Court
Decided September 18, 1928PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCoshow,j.
The principal contention of plaintiffs in this court is that said partnership was a non-trading partnership, and that J. A. Miller of that firm was not authorized without special authority from or consent of his partner to sell the warrants involved in this litigation: 1 Rowley on Partnership, §§ 151, 426; Schumacher v. Summer Tel. Co., 161 Iowa, 326 (142 N. W. 1034, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 203, 207); Harris v. Mayor, 73 Md. 22 (17 Atl. 1046, 20 Atl. 111, 25 Am. St. Rep. 565, 8 L. R. A. 677); McManus v. Smith, 37 Or. 222 (61 Pac. 844); Lee v. Ellis, 121 Or. 259 (233 Pac. 873).
The evidence shows…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Crawford v. HutchinsonOregon Supreme Court · 1901
- Schumacher v. the Sumner Tele. Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1913
- Harris v. Mayor and City Council of BaltimoreCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1890
- Maasdam v. Van BloklandOregon Supreme Court · 1927
- Lee v. EllisOregon Supreme Court · 1927
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Mertz v. OwenSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1942
- Elle v. BabbittOregon Supreme Court · 1971
- Baker v. Holland Furnace Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1938