Legal Opinion

Doehler v. Lansdon

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided March 24, 1931PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCoshow, C. J.

Respondents, who are plaintiffs, have moved the court for an order dismissing the appeal taken by defendants in the above-entitled matter. The motion to dismiss is based on the claim that the undertaking is insufficient in several particulars: First, that the liability of appellants and their surety is limited therein. Second, the undertaking is not sufficiently executed. Third, authority for subscribing the name of the surety is not shown.

First, the undertaking is in the usual form except that the word “damages” is omitted from the specific statement of appellants’ obligation which reads:…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. O'Connor v. ToweyOregon Supreme Court · 1914
  2. Steed v. CavanaughOregon Supreme Court · 1915

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Timberline Equipment Company, Inc. v. DavenportOregon Supreme Court · 1973
  2. King v. Farmers Electric Coop., Inc.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1952
  3. HUNT v. KetellOregon Supreme Court · 1953
  4. Martin v. MillerMichigan Supreme Court · 1953
  5. Michelsen v. PenneyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1941

2 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