Legal Opinion

Richanbach v. Ruby

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided April 9, 1928PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMcBRIDE, J.

The defendant raises two important questions in this appeal. The first question, briefly stated, is that the contract for leasing* the property, which contained an option to purchase the same, is a contract for the sale of real estate; that under subdivision 8, Section 808, Or. L., such contract must be in writing and, it not being in writing in this case, that therefore the plaintiff cannot recover. It is contended, conceding plaintiff’s allegations in the complaint to be true, that the contract is not separate and therefore the plaintiff has no remedy to recover the commission.

The second…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Willard v. TayloeSupreme Court of the United States · 1870
  2. Ide v. LeiserMontana Supreme Court · 1890
  3. House v. JacksonOregon Supreme Court · 1893
  4. Coleman v. ApplegarthCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1887
  5. Litz v. GooslingCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1892

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Shaughnessy v. EidsmoSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1946
  2. Dougherty v. California Kettleman Oil Royalties, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1937
  3. Warner Bros. Pictures v. BrodelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
  4. DiPietro v. BoyntonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1993
  5. Debritz v. SylviaWashington Supreme Court · 1944

10 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