Legal Opinion

Kroschel v. Martineau Hotels, Inc.

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided January 27, 1933PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBailey, J.

This proceeding was instituted and first tried as an action at law. After the court had announced its decision in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant sought and obtained permission to file a second amended answer, setting forth an equitable defense. From a decree in favor of the defendant, plaintiff appeals.

Plaintiff contends that the lower court erred: (1) in permitting defendant to file a second amended answer setting forth an equitable defense after the case had been tried as an action at law after a decision had been announced favorable to the plaintiff; and (2) in entering a decree…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Liberty Oil Co. v. Condon National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
  2. Hatch v. . Central National BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1879
  3. Welch v. JohnsonOregon Supreme Court · 1919
  4. Howard v. TettelbaumOregon Supreme Court · 1912
  5. Talbot v. GarretsonOregon Supreme Court · 1897

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Ross v. RobinsonOregon Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Oldenburg v. ClaggettOregon Supreme Court · 1933
  3. Thorp v. RutherfordOregon Supreme Court · 1934
  4. Alery v. ALERY, JR., ET UX.Oregon Supreme Court · 1951
  5. Alery v. ALERY, JR., ET UX.Oregon Supreme Court · 1951

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

Powered by the Exa API