Legal Opinion

McLennan v. Holbrook

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided May 25, 1933PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, J.

On January 1, 1920, defendant Holbrook was, and ever since has been, a real estate broker, duly licensed under the laws of the state of Oregon. Pursuant to section 8310, Oregon Laws 1920, defendant Holbrook delivered to the insurance commissioner a bond, executed by himself as principal, and the New Amsterdam Casualty Company (hereinafter known as the defendant company) as surety, in the sum of $1,000. The conditions of said bond (made a part of plaintiff’s complaint), pertinent to a correct determination of this case, are as follows:

THE CONDITIONS OF THE ABOVE OBLIGATION are such that,…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Stout v. Van ZanteOregon Supreme Court · 1923
  2. Sellwood v. GrayOregon Supreme Court · 1884
  3. Kaston v. StoreyOregon Supreme Court · 1905
  4. Schleef v. PurdyOregon Supreme Court · 1923
  5. Adair v. AdairOregon Supreme Court · 1892

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Investors Syndicate v. SmithCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1939
  2. Libel v. PierceOregon Supreme Court · 1934
  3. Smith v. Portland Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nOregon Supreme Court · 1956
  4. West v. WhiteCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1988
  5. Christy v. CampbellCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1982

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