Legal Opinion

Brown v. Siemens

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided March 1, 1926PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCoshow, J.

The first reason assigned why the complaint is alleged to be fatally defective is that the representations, made by defendant to the plaintiff concerning the financial conditions of the bank, are not alleged to have been in writing. It is not necessary to allege that a contract within the statute of frauds is in writing. That is a matter of evidence. Section 809, Or. L., relied on by the defendant, is to the effect that no evidence is admissible. The statute does not require that one, relying on a contract within the statute of frauds, must aver that it is in writing: Smith v. Jackson, 97 Or.…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Putnam v. Pacific Monthly Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1913
  2. Hill v. Tualatin AcademyOregon Supreme Court · 1912
  3. McFarland v. Carlsbad Sanatorium Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1913
  4. Nevada Bank v. Portland Nat. BankU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon · 1893
  5. Purdy v. UnderwoodOregon Supreme Court · 1918

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Howard v. MerrickOregon Supreme Court · 1933
  2. Brock & Davis Co., Inc. v. Charleston Nat. BankDistrict Court, S.D. West Virginia · 1977
  3. Medford National Bank v. BlanchardOregon Supreme Court · 1931
  4. Wright v. Scappoose School District No. IJCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1976
  5. Condit v. BoddingOregon Supreme Court · 1934

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