Legal Opinion

Holmberg v. Prudential Savings & Loan Ass'n

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided July 23, 1929PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRossman, J.

We shall first consider appellant’s assignment of error predicated upon the denial of its motion for a directed verdict. The two Holmbergs were employed as common laborers in the construction of a railroad tunnel in Harney • County. One R. W. Ellithorpe, a representative of the appellant,, visited the construction camp where the two men lodged, and interested them in the defendant. Since Elliothorpe did not testify, the account of what occurred upon that occasion was narrated from the witness-stand, only by the plaintiffs. Their story was to the following effect: when the agent discovered…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Wheelwright v. VanderbiltOregon Supreme Court · 1914
  2. Interior Warehouse Co. v. DunnOregon Supreme Court · 1916
  3. Lovell v. PottsOregon Supreme Court · 1924
  4. Bouchet v. Oregon Motor Car Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1915
  5. Union Central Life Ins. Co. v. KerronOregon Supreme Court · 1928

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Federici Et Ux v. LehmanOregon Supreme Court · 1962
  2. Estate of Krueger v. RoppOregon Supreme Court · 1978
  3. Estate of Krueger v. RoppOregon Supreme Court · 1978
  4. State v. GourleyOregon Supreme Court · 1956
  5. State v. GourleyOregon Supreme Court · 1956

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API