Feenaughty v. Beall
Oregon Supreme Court
From Multnomah: Edwin Y. Littlefield, Judge. Department 1. The people and concerns involved in this litigation" are here named: Coast Culvert & Flume Company was a corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of iron culverts and flumes; Multnomah Iron Works was another corporation engaged in the manufacture of machinery and tools; Beall & Company, afterwards called Hodson-Feenaughty Company, was originally a concern engaged in the jobbing business and particularly in…
Read the full summary
From Multnomah: Edwin Y. Littlefield, Judge. Department 1. The people and concerns involved in this litigation" are here named: Coast Culvert & Flume Company was a corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of iron culverts and flumes; Multnomah Iron Works was another corporation engaged in the manufacture of machinery and tools; Beall & Company, afterwards called Hodson-Feenaughty Company, was originally a concern engaged in the jobbing business and particularly in selling the products of the Coast Culvert & Flume Company; John S. Beall and his brother, E. H. Beall, held the controlling…
1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.
1. A contract may be defined as an agreement between two or more parties competent for that purpose, upon a sufficient consideration, to do or not to do a particular thing which lawfully may be done or omitted. In this suit there are three questions to be considered: First, whether it was lawful to make such a contract as the plaintiffs say was made; second, whether there was actually a contract; and third, if made, whether it was sufficiently certain to enable a court to decree specific performance thereof. While the common-law rule was that a contract in restraint of trade was unlawful,…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Colson v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1817
- Blanchard v. Detroit, Lansing & Lake Michigan RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1875
- Kramer v. . OldSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1896
- Burke v. MeadIndiana Supreme Court · 1902
- Bradford & Carson v. Montgomery Furniture Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1905
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Enco, Inc. v. F. C. Russell Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1957
- Van v. FoxOregon Supreme Court · 1977
- Smith v. VehrsOregon Supreme Court · 1952
- Hyland v. Oregon Agricultural Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1924
- Woolsey v. DraperOregon Supreme Court · 1921
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.