Legal Opinion

De Young v. Crooks

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided January 18, 1928PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRossman, J.

1. We believe that the evidence warrants the conclusion that the plaintiffs substan tially performed their contract. Defendants complain concerning an alleged delay in the completion of the house. October 7, 1924, the defendants sent the plaintiffs a letter stating their intention of moving their furniture into the house due to the expiration of a lease on the apartment they were then occupying. No charge was made in the letter to the effect that the plaintiffs had delayed completion of the building. A day or two following the letter the furniture arrived and within several days thereafter…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Richardson v. Investment Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1913
  2. Schade v. MullerOregon Supreme Court · 1915
  3. Wolke v. SchmidtOregon Supreme Court · 1924
  4. Taggart v. School District No. 1Oregon Supreme Court · 1920

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. McComb v. CogswellOregon Supreme Court · 1932
  2. Spaeth v. BecktellOregon Supreme Court · 1935

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

Powered by the Exa API