Palmiter v. Hackett
Oregon Supreme Court
From Hood River: Feed W. Wilson, Judge. Department 1. The substance of the complaint is that the plaintiffs were the owners of some acreage in Hood River County and the defendants Nelson Hackett and W. A. Hackett were the owners of a certain lot in Portland.
Read the full summary
From Hood River: Feed W. Wilson, Judge. Department 1. The substance of the complaint is that the plaintiffs were the owners of some acreage in Hood River County and the defendants Nelson Hackett and W. A. Hackett were the owners of a certain lot in Portland. The property of the plaintiffs was encumbered by a mortgage of $1,600, that'of the defendants by two mortgages aggregating $3,100. Negotiations were opened for an exchange of properties and, as the plaintiffs allege, for the purpose of inducing them to make the exchange the defendants represented: ‘ ‘ That' said lot was improved with a…
1Opinion
Petition for Rehearing.
(186 Pac. 581.)
On petition for a rehearing. Denied.
Mr. Ernest C. Smith, for the Petition.
Messrs. Brona/ugh & Carter, contra.
BURNETT, J.
5, 6. Since the rendition of the opin- ' ion in this case the defendants have filed a petition for a general rehearing of the case. They urge' that when early in the negotiations they made the representation about the rentability of the property they themselves had no knowledge of the ordinance forbidding the use of the building simultaneously as an apartment house and as a garage. On this basis, they contend that the element of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Shute v. JohnsonOregon Supreme Court · 1893
- Frederick v. ShermanOregon Supreme Court · 1918
- Statesman Pub. Co. v. FoltinOregon Supreme Court · 1917
- Henderson v. Tillamook Hotel Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1918