Legal Opinion

Pace v. Edgemont Investment Co.

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided October 14, 1931PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBean, C. J.

The trial court found that the allegations of the complaint were not sustained by the evidence. In this finding we fully concur.

The plaintiffs did not allege or prove that they sustained any pecuniary loss or injury on account of the transaction. There is no proof submitted to the effect that the fair market value of the lot purchased by plaintiffs was less than the agreed purchase price. See Cameron v. Edgemont Investment Co., 136 Or. 385 (299 P. 698), in which a similar case is discussed.

In a suit for rescission, based on fraud, plaintiffs must allege and prove that they suffered damage or…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Southern Development Co. v. SilvaSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
  2. Sharkey v. Burlingame Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1929
  3. McCabe v. KelleherOregon Supreme Court · 1918
  4. Cameron v. Edgemont Investment Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1931
  5. Castleman v. StrykerOregon Supreme Court · 1923

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Hansen v. HolmbergOregon Supreme Court · 1945
  2. Furtado v. GemmellOregon Supreme Court · 1965
  3. Keller v. LONSDALE ET UXOregon Supreme Court · 1959
  4. Ball v. Associated Oil Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1935
  5. Davis v. Green and CrouchOregon Supreme Court · 1948

2 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