Legal Opinion

Tulloch v. Cockrum

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided September 29, 1925PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBelt, J.

The sole question in this case is whether the defendant acquired title to the automobile by virtue of the proceedings had to foreclose the lien thereon. It was attempted to be foreclosed by advertisement and sale pursuant to Section 10277, supra, which, in part, provides as follows:

u * * That the person, or claimant, desiring to foreclose such lien by advertisement and sale, ■ shall deliver to the sheriff or any constable of the county in which such chattel is then situate, a certified copy of the notice of lien * * with the request endorsed thereon * * for the foreclosure of said lien.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Wright v. City of McMinnvilleOregon Supreme Court · 1911
  2. Hiner v. PittsOregon Supreme Court · 1918
  3. Bitting v. Douglas CountyOregon Supreme Court · 1893

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Rogue Valley Memorial Hospital v. Salem Insurance Agency, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1973
  2. Yellow Manufacturing Acceptance Corp. v. BristolOregon Supreme Court · 1951
  3. Williams v. International Harvester Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1943
  4. United Engine Parts, Inc. v. RiedOregon Supreme Court · 1978
  5. Columbia Auto Works, Inc. v. YatesOregon Supreme Court · 1945

4 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