Legal Opinion

Geary v. Prudhomme

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided January 13, 1926PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCoshow, J.

1. Replevin will not lie for the recovery of an undivided interest in an article of personal property: Cobbey on Replevin (2 ed.) § 238 Halsey v. Simmons, 85 Or. 326, 327 (166 Pac. 944, L. R. A. 1918A, 321); Huffman v. Knight, 36 Or. 581 (60 Pac. 207); Phipps v. Taylor, 15 Or. 484 (16 Pac. 171).

The prayer of the complaint as amended in the course of the trial is as follows:

“Wherefore plaintiff prays judgment against the defendant that he, plaintiff, be adjudged to be the owner and entitled to the immediate possession of the certain device or patent, or applied for patent, known as the Gorden…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Gellert v. Bank of California, National Ass'nOregon Supreme Court · 1923
  2. Phipps v. TaylorOregon Supreme Court · 1887
  3. Almada v. VandecarOregon Supreme Court · 1919
  4. Boord v. KaylorOregon Supreme Court · 1925
  5. Huffman v. KnightOregon Supreme Court · 1900

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Hocks v. JeremiahCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1988
  2. Lisoski v. BroehlCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2010

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API