Dare v. Boss
Oregon Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtMcBRIDE, C. J.
The testimony as to Little’s exact status in the company is very contradictory. A written contract between the defendant company and Little was introduced, which upon the face of it shows that he was employed to sell cars upon a commission; the company being under obligation to furnish him with gasoline and such things as he required, but not obligating the company, so far as it appears, to furnish him with a car. The testimony indicates that he was not to receive any compensation excepting on the condition of making a sale. There is further testimony to the effect that the company did not…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Emmons v. Southern Pac. Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1920
- D. B. Loveman Co. v. BaylessTennessee Supreme Court · 1913
- Childress v. Lake Erie & Western RailroadIndiana Supreme Court · 1914
- Webster v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1912
- Rathjen v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1910
3Cited by41 opinions
- Wiebe v. SeelyOregon Supreme Court · 1959
- Northern Indiana Transit, Inc. v. BurkIndiana Supreme Court · 1950
- Geisen v. LuceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1932
- Martin v. Oregon Stages, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1929
- Peoples v. FulkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.