Legal Opinion

Wickwire v. Hanson

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided January 7, 1930PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCoshow, C. J.

Plaintiffs insist that under the terms of the conditional sales agreement they were entitled to a trial at law with a jury. Plaintiffs cite and rely on Manley Auto Co. v. Jackson, 115 Or. 396, 400 (237 P. 982); Endicott v. Digerness, 103 Or. 555, 561 (205 P. 975); McDaniel v. Chiaramonte, 61 Or. 403, 408 (122 P. 33). After quoting from Mechem on Sales, section 615, plaintiffs say in their brief:

“The foregoing has been approved a number of times by this court. The fourth remedy specified above provides that if the contract permits, the vendor may hold the goods as security for the fulfillment…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. McDaniel v. ChiaramonteOregon Supreme Court · 1912
  2. Manley Auto Co. v. JacksonOregon Supreme Court · 1925
  3. Endicott v. DigernessOregon Supreme Court · 1922
  4. Lynch v. Sable-Oberteuffer-Peterson, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1927
  5. Standring v. GordonOregon Supreme Court · 1926

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. United States v. BaumanDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 1943
  2. Keller v. LONSDALE ET UXOregon Supreme Court · 1959

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API