Legal Opinion

Bobell v. Wagenaar

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided November 28, 1922PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRand, J.

Plaintiff’s first contention is that the court had no jurisdiction to give judgment against him in either of said actions for the reason that he was insane at the time and no guardian had been appointed or appeared for him in either of said actions. This contention cannot be sustained. In both of these actions the relief sought was the recovery of a money judgment only and service of the summons and complaint was made upon the plaintiff herein in person in the county where the actions had been commenced. The court, because of such personal service upon the defendant, had full and complete…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Grignon's Lessee v. ASTORSupreme Court of the United States · 1844
  2. Morrill v. MorrillOregon Supreme Court · 1890
  3. Camp v. CampSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1824
  4. Tustin v. GauntOregon Supreme Court · 1873
  5. Maloney v. DeweyIllinois Supreme Court · 1889

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Beckley Nat. Bank v. BooneCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1940
  2. Hills v. PierceOregon Supreme Court · 1924
  3. Portland Trust & Savings Bank v. Lincoln Realty Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1946
  4. Skinner v. SilverOregon Supreme Court · 1937
  5. Gatt v. HurlburtOregon Supreme Court · 1929

9 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