Legal Opinion · Dissent

Austin Co. v. Tillman Co.

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided July 25, 1922Published

1Dissent

BURNETT, C. J.,

Dissenting. — This is an action by the plaintiff to recover a balance alleged to be due on the purchase price of an asphalt mixing plant. The transaction was begun by the defendant’s addressing to the plaintiff the following order:

“F. C. Austin Company, Inc.,
“Chicago, Illinois.
“Gentlemen:
“Please enter order and ship to our address Astoria, Oregon, one Austin Portable Asphalt Mixing Plant as described on pages No. 32 and 33 of your catalogue and for which we agree to pay eighty-seven hundred dollars f. o. b. Astoria, Oregon. Payment to be made in cash within ten days after plant…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Pierson v. . CrooksNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
  2. Brown v. Russell & Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1886
  3. Fay & Eagan Co. v. Dudley & SonsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1907
  4. Feeney & Bremer Co. v. StoneOregon Supreme Court · 1918
  5. Nave v. PowellIndiana Court of Appeals · 1911

13 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