Legal Opinion

Clevenger v. Smith

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided May 7, 1928PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCo Show, J.

By filing an amended answer after the demurrer to the further and separate defense in the original answer was sustained the original answer ceased to be a part of the pleadings. The pleadings, upon which the trial was conducted, are the complaint, the amended answer and the reply thereto. It is elementary law that in order to prove an illegal consideration the facts constituting the alleged illegality must be pleaded: 13 C. J. 742, §890; Wilson v. Prettyman, 94 Or. 275 (185 Pac. 587); Whitney v. Day, 86 Or. 268 (168 Pac. 295). The amended answer contains no facts tending to show failure of…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Doon v. SmithOregon Supreme Court · 1893
  2. Newport Construction Co. v. PorterOregon Supreme Court · 1926
  3. Vnuk v. PattersonOregon Supreme Court · 1926
  4. Whitney v. DayOregon Supreme Court · 1917
  5. Wilson v. PrettymanOregon Supreme Court · 1919

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Howard-Cooper Corp. v. Umpqua Dredging & Construction Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1934
  2. Baker v. JensenOregon Supreme Court · 1930
  3. Baker v. JensenOregon Supreme Court · 1931
  4. Sorenson v. BowenOregon Supreme Court · 1953

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

Powered by the Exa API