Legal Opinion

Dare v. Boss

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided April 8, 1924PublishedCited by 41 opinions

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

  1. Emmons v. Southern Pac. Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1920
  2. D. B. Loveman Co. v. BaylessTennessee Supreme Court · 1913
  3. Childress v. Lake Erie & Western RailroadIndiana Supreme Court · 1914
  4. Webster v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1912
  5. Rathjen v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1910

3Cited by41 opinions

  1. Wiebe v. SeelyOregon Supreme Court · 1959
  2. Northern Indiana Transit, Inc. v. BurkIndiana Supreme Court · 1950
  3. Geisen v. LuceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1932
  4. Martin v. Oregon Stages, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1929
  5. Peoples v. FulkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942

36 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