Legal Opinion

Philco Finance Co. v. Patton

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided October 18, 1967PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtO’Connell, J.

This is an action on a promissory note brought against the makers Patton and Maxwell and W. E. and Marion Schoenleber, who assumed and agreed to pay it. Defendants Patton and Maxwell appeal from a judgment for plaintiff.

Defendants Patton and Maxwell purchased dry cleaning equipment from Launderette Sales & Equipment Co. on a conditional sales contract for $28,500, of which $2,700 was paid down. They executed their promissory note for the balance. ① Launderette assigned the note and contract to plaintiff. Thereafter Patton and Maxwell sold the dry cleaning equipment to defendants, W. E. and…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Zastrow v. KnightSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1930
  2. Cellers v. MeachemOregon Supreme Court · 1907
  3. Mortgage Guarantee Co. v. ChotinerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
  4. Peters v. DietrichOregon Supreme Court · 1933
  5. Fred Christensen, Inc. v. Hansen Construction Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1933

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Toomey v. CammackDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1975
  2. North Bank v. Circle Investment Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1982
  3. Binford v. L. W. Lichtenberger EstateCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1983
  4. Langeveld v. L. R. Z. H. Corp.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1977
  5. Langeveld v. L. R. Z. H. Corp.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1977

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

Powered by the Exa API