Legal Opinion

Forsyth v. Nathansohn

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided February 24, 1932PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRossman, J.

The two assignments of error argued in appellant’s brief submit only one question, that is, the validity of the written instrument which constitutes the foundation of this action. The complaint refers to that instrument as “a lease” while the answer describes it as “a contract for trapping privileges.” The instrument, which is attached to the complaint as an exhibit, describes the land subject to its covenants, thus:

“Nine hundred twenty-eight and 90/100ths (928.90) acres situate in Sections Twenty-six (26), Thirty-five (35). and Thirty-six (36), in Township Four (4) South of Range Forty-two…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Stinson v. HardyOregon Supreme Court · 1895
  2. Christensen v. Pacific Coast Borax Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1894
  3. McCarthy v. KiernanOregon Supreme Court · 1926
  4. Klein v. PortlandOregon Supreme Court · 1923

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Sproul v. GilbertOregon Supreme Court · 1961
  2. Blue River Sawmills, Ltd. v. GatesOregon Supreme Court · 1960
  3. Strandholm v. BarbeyOregon Supreme Court · 1933
  4. Brusco Towboat Co. v. State Ex Rel. State Land BoardCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1977
  5. Lamken v. MillerWashington Supreme Court · 1935

5 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