Legal Opinion

Harris v. Schnitzer

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided October 31, 1933PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRossman, J.

The defendants contend that the chattel mortgage mentioned in the above statement is invalid (1) because it constituted, according to their contentions, a conveyance to the mortgagee in trust for the mortgagor; (2) because the parties contemplated, according to the defendants, that the mortgagor should remain in possession of the mortgaged property, sell the merchandise, and employ the proceeds for his own purposes, thereby rendering the portion of the mortgage applicable to the merchandise fraudulent, which resulted, so the defendants argue, in the invalidity of the entire mortgage; and (8)…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Currie v. BowmanOregon Supreme Court · 1894
  2. Orton v. OrtonOregon Supreme Court · 1879
  3. Bremer & Co. v. Fleckenstein & MayerOregon Supreme Court · 1881
  4. Fisher v. KellyOregon Supreme Court · 1896
  5. Sabin v. WilkinsOregon Supreme Court · 1897

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. R. Anthony Dubay v. Everette H. Williams, Everette H. Williams v. Rose City Development Co., Inc., Robert J. Davis v. Everette H. WilliamsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1969
  2. Carolina Casualty Insurance v. Oregon Automobile InsuranceOregon Supreme Court · 1965
  3. Collins v. CollinsArizona Supreme Court · 1935
  4. Connel v. O'ConnorOregon Supreme Court · 1938
  5. McPherson v. State Industrial Accident CommissionOregon Supreme Court · 1942

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