Field v. Rodgers
Oregon Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtBean, J.
Plaintiff contends that Rodgers failed to finance the plan in accordance with the agreement, and it was modified and in consideration of plaintiff advancing most of the funds for the enterprise, each of the parties should receive1 one half ‘of the profits. The agreement between plaintiff and Rodgers was oral.
Plaintiff asserts that it was contemplated that if the wrecking of the Astoria hulls was successful financially, other contracts should be sought and shared in one third to plaintiff and two thirds to decedent. The wrecking of the two hulls at Astoria was a financial success, yielding a…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Branch v. LambertOregon Supreme Court · 1922
- Goltra v. PenlandOregon Supreme Court · 1904
- Consor v. AndrewOregon Supreme Court · 1912
- Harding v. GrimOregon Supreme Court · 1894
- Quinn v. GrossOregon Supreme Court · 1893
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- DeWitt v. RissmanOregon Supreme Court · 1959
- Seaton v. Security Savings & Trust Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1929
- Lawrence v. LaddOregon Supreme Court · 1977
- Hagberg v. HaasOregon Supreme Court · 1964
- In Re Steele's EstateOregon Supreme Court · 1935
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.