Legal Opinion

Duclos v. Walton

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided November 24, 1891PublishedCited by 9 opinions

Defendant appeals. the plaintiff in this ease had a plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law on the allegations of his complaint either by an action for money had and received, or for damages occasioned by failure or negligence in the performance of the agreement declared on. The bill was bad on demurrer. {Frue v. Losing, 120 Mass. 507; Coquillard v. Suydam, 8 Blackf. 24; Or others v. Leo, 29 Ala. 337; Mo Calla v. Beadleston, (B. I.) 20 Atl.

Read the full summary

Defendant appeals. the plaintiff in this ease had a plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law on the allegations of his complaint either by an action for money had and received, or for damages occasioned by failure or negligence in the performance of the agreement declared on. The bill was bad on demurrer. {Frue v. Losing, 120 Mass. 507; Coquillard v. Suydam, 8 Blackf. 24; Or others v. Leo, 29 Ala. 337; Mo Calla v. Beadleston, (B. I.) 20 Atl. Rep. 11; Lewis v. Baca, (New Mex.) 21 Pac. Rep. 343; Appeal of Passyunlc B. & L. Assn. 83 Pa. St. 441.) The deed to Walton and the writing given by him…

1Opinion of the CourtLoud, J.

This is a suit in equity, brought by the plaintiff for an accounting, and to recover such sum as may be found 'due him from the defendant upon such accounting as trustee in the sale of certain real property. Briefly, the facts as disclosed by the record are these: That on the tenth day of August, 1885, the plaintiff borrowed of the defendant the sum of $750 for two years with interest at ten per cent, and secured the same by a mortgage on certain real property described therein; that neither the principal nor interest was paid when the same became due, and that in 1888, after the expiration…

2Cited by9 opinions

  1. Hamilton v. HolmesOregon Supreme Court · 1906
  2. Irwin v. HolbrookWashington Supreme Court · 1901
  3. Foster v. WilliamsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910
  4. Fetsch v. PedersenOregon Supreme Court · 1927
  5. Chavez v. Shimmick Construction Company, Inc.District Court, S.D. California · 2020

4 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