Legal Opinion

Weissman v. Russell

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1881PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court,

Watson, J.:

This action was brought to recover the amount alleged to be due and unpaid on a certain promissory note executed by appellant, in favor of respondent, a copy of which was set forth in the complaint. The note was negotiable, and by its terms due June 1, 1881. The appellant was entitled to three days of grace. The endorsement of the clerk of the *74circuit court shows that the complaint was filed June 2, 1881. The answer denies, among other things, that the note was due when the action was commenced, and as a separate defense alleges facts showing a failure of…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Henslee v. CannefaxSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
  2. State ex rel. Mahoney v. McKinnonOregon Supreme Court · 1880
  3. Keteltas v. . MyersNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
  4. Davanay v. EggenhoffCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
  5. Beekman v. PlatnerNew York Supreme Court · 1853

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Iwanicki v. State Industrial Accident CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1922
  2. Moody v. RichardsOregon Supreme Court · 1896
  3. Wyatt v. HendersonOregon Supreme Court · 1897
  4. Leo v. HellerOregon Supreme Court · 1970
  5. Overbeck v. RobertsOregon Supreme Court · 1906

2 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