Legal Opinion
Koop v. Cook
Oregon Supreme Court
Decided October 7, 1913PublishedCited by 7 opinions
From Douglas: James W. Hamilton, Judge. Department 1. Statement by Mr. Justice Ramsey. This is an action by J. W. Koop against one Cook and E. L. Giles to recover $500 and interest tliereon upon a promissory note. Tbe plaintiff recovered a judgment in tbe court below for tbe full amount of tbe note and costs against tbe defendant Giles. Tbe defendant Cook made no appearance.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Ramsey
This action is based on a promissory note, of which the following is a copy:
“$500.00. Brainerd, Minn., Dec. 21,1900.
“Ninety days (without grace) after date we promise to pay to the order of S. & J. W. Koop five hundred dollars, with interest at the rate of eight per cent per annum until paid, the interest to maturity having been paid in advance, and being the intention that if this note is not paid at maturity shall bear the same rate of interest thereafter as before paid. Payable at the First National Bank, Brainerd, value received.
“[Signed] Cook and Giles/’
S. Koop assigned his interest in…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Bell v. MorrisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1828
- Wetzell v. BussardSupreme Court of the United States · 1826
- Hanson v. TowleSupreme Court of Kansas · 1877
- Tebo v. . RobinsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1885
- Hartranft's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- King v. MitchellOregon Supreme Court · 1950
- King v. MitchellOregon Supreme Court · 1949
- Berghuis v. BurgesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1939
- Clostermann v. RodeOregon Supreme Court · 1948
- Buell v. Deschutes County Municipal Improvement DistrictOregon Supreme Court · 1956
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.