Legal Opinion
Coker & Bellamy v. Richey
Oregon Supreme Court
Decided July 24, 1923PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHarris, J.
Although it may sometimes be difficult to determine whether a given payment is voluntary or involuntary a comprehensive statement of the rule appears in Brumagin v. Tillinghast, 18 Cal. 265 (79 Am. Dec. 176).
“It may be said in general that there must be actual or threatened exercise of power possessed, or supposed to be possessed, by the party exacting or receiving the payment, over the person or property of the party making the.payment, from which the latter has no other means of immediate relief than by advancing the money.”
The sheriff was armed with a writ of execution and by force of it…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Harrigan v. GilchristWisconsin Supreme Court · 1904
- The BANK OF THE UNITED STATES v. the Bank of WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1832
- Northwestern Fuel Co. v. BrockSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Haebler v. . MyersNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
- Brumagim v. TillinghastCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Lytle v. Payette-Oregon Slope Irrigation DistrictOregon Supreme Court · 1944
- Anderson v. BorderMontana Supreme Court · 1930
- Cottrell Et Ux. v. Prier Et Ux.Oregon Supreme Court · 1951
- Lucas v. First Nat. Bank of PawneeSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1935
- Fritz v. FritzOregon Supreme Court · 1946
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.