Legal Opinion

Stoddard v. Nelson

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided March 27, 1889PublishedCited by 8 opinions

Appeal from Multnomah County.

1Opinion of the CourtStrahan, J.

This is an action brought to abate a nuisance, and to recover damages for maintaining the same.

The amended complaint is substantially as follows: 1. That defendant is the owner of lot 8 in block 118 of the city of Portland; that plaintiff, as trustee, leased *418the front fifty-one feet of said lot of defendant, for a term, for rental value, and placed buildings upon it. Defendant thereafter, during the term, and without plaintiff’s consent, built á high board fence on the rear line of said leased property, which sensibly shut out light and air from plaintiff’s stores, and rendered the same…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Wilson v. . DeenNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
  2. Thompson v. LibbySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
  3. Bast v. BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
  4. Looney v. RankinOregon Supreme Court · 1888
  5. Walker v. EnglerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1860

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Tallmadge v. HooperOregon Supreme Court · 1900
  2. Portland National Bank v. ScottOregon Supreme Court · 1891
  3. Colvin v. GoffOregon Supreme Court · 1916
  4. Gill v. Columbia Contract Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1914
  5. Leavitt & Co. v. DimmickOregon Supreme Court · 1917

3 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