Legal Opinion

Cole v. Canadian Bank of Commerce

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided July 10, 1925PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCoshow, J.

The plaintiff complains that the motion for nonsuit did not specify with sufficient particularity the grounds for the nonsuit. We do not-deem it necessary to pass upon that matter. It is very technical, and we prefer to dispose of the appeal upon the merits of the case.

The defendant bank also complains because the action was instituted in Multnomah County instead of Alberta, Canada. Tbe defendant bas no ground for complaint on that account because it bas answered to tbe merits and thereby submitted to tbe jurisdiction of tbe court. It is a transitory action and no question of tbe jurisdiction…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. National Bank v. Insurance Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1881
  2. Union Stock Yards Bank v. GillespieSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
  3. Allen v. Puritan Trust Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1912
  4. Simpson v. First Nat. BankOregon Supreme Court · 1919
  5. First Denton National Bank v. KenneyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1911

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Quanah, Acme & Pacific Railway Co. v. Wichita State Bank & Trust Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1936
  2. Ward v. TOWN TAVERNOregon Supreme Court · 1951
  3. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. RobertsonOregon Supreme Court · 1929
  4. American Surety Co. v. Multnomah CountyOregon Supreme Court · 1943
  5. Oldenburg v. ClaggettOregon Supreme Court · 1933

7 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