Legal Opinion

Norum v. Ohio Oil Co.

Montana Supreme Court

Decided June 28, 1928No. 6,324Published

1Opinion

On Rehearing.

2Opinion of the CourtJustice Galen

After motion for rehearing had been made and filed in this case, Messrs. Belden & DeKalb appeared and asked leave to file a brief in support of the motion as amici curiae, which was accorded them. They presented and argued the.question of whether the doctrine of account stated is properly applicable to a mistake of law in interpreting the provisions of a contract in writing, by which the rights of the parties are established. In consequence whereof, a rehearing was granted, and the appeal was re-argued by all counsel, solely as to the correctness of our original views expressed…

3Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Hunt v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1828
  2. Bank of the United States v. DANIELSupreme Court of the United States · 1838
  3. Chappedelaine v. DechenauxSupreme Court of the United States · 1808
  4. Power & Bro., Ltd. v. TurnerMontana Supreme Court · 1908
  5. Brundy v. CanbyMontana Supreme Court · 1915

8 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