Hanson v. Johnson Et Ux.
Oregon Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtBossman, J.
A brief review of the evidence will facilitate an understanding of the assignments of error. In the summer of 1931 the two plaintiffs were real estate brokers. The New Amsterdam Casualty Company was the plaintiffs’ surety upon their real estate broker’s bond filed by them in the office of the state real estate commissioner, pursuant to the requirements of § 63-720, Oregon Code 1930. Claus Johnson and his wife, Emma, who were the two defendants when this action was instituted, were at that time residing in Santa Monica, California, where they owned a parcel of real property. At the same time…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Koehler v. DennisonOregon Supreme Court · 1914
- Medford National Bank v. BlanchardOregon Supreme Court · 1931
- Johnson v. SavageOregon Supreme Court · 1907
- Ladd & Tilton Bank v. RosensteinWashington Supreme Court · 1922
- McColl v. CottinghamSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1923
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Cosgrove v. TraceyOregon Supreme Court · 1937
- Barendrecht v. ClarkOregon Supreme Court · 1966
- Vandeventer v. Dale Construction CompanyOregon Supreme Court · 1975
- Richer v. BurkeOregon Supreme Court · 1934
- Hartford Accident & Ind. Co. v. AnkenyOregon Supreme Court · 1953
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.