Legal Opinion

Gordan v. Briody

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided January 27, 1943PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHay, J.

On and prior to May 18,1938, the defendants Briody and Muir were engaged in business as co-partners in the city of Portland under the assumed business name of Industrial Chrome Plating Company. Their business was the chrome-plating of heavy machinery, such as rollers used in paper mills. On that day, Briody, assuming to act for the partnership, made an assignment for the benefit of its creditors in favor of the defendant Schulein, who had theretofore been one of its employees.

There was about that time another concern of the same name in Portland, engaged in the same business. This was a…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Matthews v. Seaboard Air Line RailwaySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1903
  2. Dahms v. SearsOregon Supreme Court · 1885
  3. McCargar v. WileyOregon Supreme Court · 1924
  4. Freeman v. TrummerOregon Supreme Court · 1907
  5. Andrews v. HoeslichWashington Supreme Court · 1907

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Vigil v. JohnsonNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1955
  2. Mogul Transportation Co. v. LarisonOregon Supreme Court · 1947
  3. Still v. BentonOregon Supreme Court · 1968
  4. Brazil v. DupreeOregon Supreme Court · 1953
  5. Gooding v. KoonceIdaho Supreme Court · 1957

2 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