Legal Opinion

French v. C. F. & T. Co.

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided March 5, 1928PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.

It should not be necessary to state that this is not a suit for an accounting. However, the word “accounting” is mentioned in two places in the record before us. It first appears in the prayer of the complaint and is again mentioned in the plaintiffs ’ brief, where they say “the suit is also for an accounting. ’ ’

The plaintiffs do not pretend that they sought redress through the corporation. They make no claim that they ever attempted to see the boohs of the corporation, or that an accounting has ever been demanded or refused, or that they have attempted to bring themselves within the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Stacy v. McNicholasOregon Supreme Court · 1914
  2. Anderson v. RobinsonOregon Supreme Court · 1912
  3. McNary v. BushOregon Supreme Court · 1899
  4. State ex rel. Crawford v. Almeda Consolidated Mines Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1923
  5. WM. H. Taylor Finance Corp. v. Oregon Logging & Timber Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1925

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Starks v. FieldWashington Supreme Court · 1939
  2. McDonough v. Southern Oregon Mining Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1945
  3. Superior Oil Corp. v. MatlockCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1931
  4. Walters-Southland Institute v. WalkerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1950
  5. First National Bank v. DualDistrict Court, D. Alaska · 1955

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