Legal Opinion

Phez Co. v. Salem Fruit Union

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided October 1, 1924PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBean, J.

The growers contend that their defenses upon this appeal is the first time that matter has been tried; that the representations made by the plaintiff and the Salem Fruit Union, and by means of-which the contracts Exhibit “C” with the growers were procured, were material inducements and the respective defenses based thereon, are sufficient to defeat recovery on the part of the plaintiff. No findings of fact were made by the trial court in regard to the defense of the growers.

It is alleged in plaintiff’s reply to the answer of the defendant growers that the mandate of this court sent to the…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited31 opinions

  1. Garnsey v. . RogersNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
  2. National Bank v. Grand LodgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
  3. Robison v. Oregon-Wash. R. & N. Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1918
  4. City of Hastings v. FoxworthyNebraska Supreme Court · 1895
  5. Parker v. JefferyOregon Supreme Court · 1894

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Waterway Terminals Co. v. P. S. Lord Mechanical ContractorsOregon Supreme Court · 1965
  2. Hoge v. Farmers Market & Supply Co. of Las Cruces, Inc.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1956
  3. Kneeland v. ShroyerOregon Supreme Court · 1958
  4. Knowles Foundry & Machine Co. v. National Plate Glass Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1939
  5. Barbour v. JohnsonOregon Supreme Court · 1954

10 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