Philco Finance Co. v. Patton
Oregon Supreme Court
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
- Zastrow v. KnightSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1930
- Cellers v. MeachemOregon Supreme Court · 1907
- Mortgage Guarantee Co. v. ChotinerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
- Peters v. DietrichOregon Supreme Court · 1933
- Fred Christensen, Inc. v. Hansen Construction Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1933
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Toomey v. CammackDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1975
- North Bank v. Circle Investment Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1982
- Binford v. L. W. Lichtenberger EstateCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1983
- Langeveld v. L. R. Z. H. Corp.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1977
- Langeveld v. L. R. Z. H. Corp.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1977