Legal Opinion

Waldman v. Connell

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided November 15, 1897PublishedCited by 1 opinion

From Multnomah: ILmitwell Hurley, Judge.

1Per curiam

The plaintiffs brought a suit to cancel and rescind a contract for the purchase by them from the defendant of an undivided three eighths interest in eighty acres of land near the City of Portland, and to recover the money paid thereon, on the *600ground, inter alia, that since making the contract the defendant has sold and disposed of a large portion of the property agreed to he conveyed, and thereby rendered himself unable to comply with his agreement. The answer admits the inability of the defendant to comply with the original contract, but as a defense to this suit avers that after making such…

2Cited by1 opinion

  1. Farrow v. NevinOregon Supreme Court · 1904

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

Powered by the Exa API