Legal Opinion
Osburn v. Deforce
Oregon Supreme Court
Decided April 28, 1927PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCoshow, J.
The trial court erred in refusing to discharge the attachment: Ruby v. Whitten, 117 Or. 271 (243 Pac. 559); Neilson v. Title Guaranty & Surety Co., 101 Or. 262 (199 Pac. 948).
The principal issue involved in the appeal is the validity of the oral modification of the written contract between plaintiff and Elton O. DeForce. It is not controverted that the contract is within the statute of frauds.
“ * * Under the statute of frauds the rule is that parties to a written agreement coming within the provisions of the statute may not, by mere oral agreement, alter one or more of the terms thereof, and…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Neppach v. Oregon & Cal. RailroadOregon Supreme Court · 1905
- Lieberman v. . Templar Motor Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1923
- Kendall v. WestIllinois Supreme Court · 1902
- Kingsley v. KresslyOregon Supreme Court · 1911
- Scott v. HubbardOregon Supreme Court · 1913
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Craswell v. BiggsOregon Supreme Court · 1938
- United Farm Agency v. McFarlandOregon Supreme Court · 1966
- Thompson v. BurrOregon Supreme Court · 1971
- Davidson v. WyattOregon Supreme Court · 1980
- Frontier Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Hartford Fire InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1972
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.