Hexter v. Schneider
Oregon Supreme Court
Multnomah County. Defendant appeals. The property in question was acquired by the plaintiff, Hexter, by purchase from the firm of Clinton & Fagan, and liad been attached by. Buckley, of San Francisco, and the property in controversy was then in the hands of the sheriff. Fleckenstein & Mayer procured the plaintiff Hexter to purchase the property of said C. & F., and thereby enable them to have said attachment released.
Read the full summary
Multnomah County. Defendant appeals. The property in question was acquired by the plaintiff, Hexter, by purchase from the firm of Clinton & Fagan, and liad been attached by. Buckley, of San Francisco, and the property in controversy was then in the hands of the sheriff. Fleckenstein & Mayer procured the plaintiff Hexter to purchase the property of said C. & F., and thereby enable them to have said attachment released. F. & M. furnished money to said Hexter with which to make such purchase. The attachment was released, and a bill of sale executed by Clinton & Fagan to the said Hexter; and the…
1Opinion of the CourtStrahan, J.
This is an action of replevin, brought to recover the possession of one McNeal & Urban safe, and one Decker piano, alleged to be of the value of $600, and damages for their detention in the sum of $50. The amended answer denies all of the allegations of the complaint, except the taking and detention of the goods.
The defendant alleges, by way of justification of the taking *186and detention, that on the. 12th day of May, 1885, one F. Berliner commenced an action against one B. Clinton, in Madison Precinct, Multnomah County, Oregon, to recover $190; that an attachment was duly issued in said…
2Cited by15 opinions
- Vulcan Iron Works v. EdwardsOregon Supreme Court · 1894
- Ferguson v. IngleOregon Supreme Court · 1900
- Hume v. WoodruffOregon Supreme Court · 1894
- Garrison v. GoodaleOregon Supreme Court · 1892
- Nunn v. BirdOregon Supreme Court · 1900
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.