Legal Opinion

Schramm v. Done

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1930PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBean, J.

The first assignment of error is that the court erred in decreeing that those of appellants who own stock of the original issue in the bank are liable for the assessment, and that the court erred in not dismissing the suit as to the first alleged cause of suit.

It is the contention of plaintiff that the holders of the shares of stock of the original issue are liable solely by reason of their consent to the constitutional amendment and that such consent would be inferred from the participation in the affairs of the bank after the constitutional amendment; that the .holders of shares of the…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Lewellyn v. FrickSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
  2. Colby v. City of MedfordOregon Supreme Court · 1917
  3. Bettman v. CowleyWashington Supreme Court · 1898
  4. Southern Surety Co. v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
  5. Brunswick T. Co. v. NAT. BK. OF BALTIMORESupreme Court of the United States · 1904

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Rainey v. MichelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
  2. State v. Sunset Ditch Co.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1944
  3. Seaborn v. WingfieldNevada Supreme Court · 1935
  4. Cleary v. BrokawWisconsin Supreme Court · 1937
  5. Hansen v. HarrisOregon Supreme Court · 1934

5 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