Legal Opinion

Larsen v. Duke

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided October 1, 1925PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBelt, J.

It is contended, since no reply was filed to the new matter pleaded in the answer, that the same is to be taken as true. The only question at issue was the date of the last payment. Plaintiff in his complaint alleged it was July 29, 1916, and defendant, by answer, alleged it was May 22, 1916. Otherwise stated, plaintiff pleads • facts to toll the statute and defendant avers them to invoke it as a bar to the action. Was it necessary for plaintiff to file a reply denying the date as alleged by defendant? We think not. Plaintiff said the payment was made in July. Why should he be obliged to deny…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Arthur & Co. v. BurkeWashington Supreme Court · 1915
  2. Regan v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1905
  3. Welch v. JohnsonOregon Supreme Court · 1919
  4. Kabat v. MooreOregon Supreme Court · 1906
  5. Young v. . AlfordSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1896

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Mogul Transportation Co. v. LarisonOregon Supreme Court · 1947
  2. Alery v. AleryOregon Supreme Court · 1951
  3. Cole v. ColeOregon Supreme Court · 1937
  4. Matteson v. AckersonMontana Supreme Court · 1937
  5. Landers v. LandersOregon Supreme Court · 1961

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

Powered by the Exa API