Legal Opinion

Amato v. FULLINGTON ET UX

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided February 28, 1958PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLusk, J.

This is a suit to cancel a note and mortgage in which the court entered a decree for the plaintiff, and the defendants have appealed.

The plaintiff, Calogero S. Amato, alleged in his complaint that his signature to the instruments under attack was “procured by fraud and deceit and no consideration of any kind or character ever passed from these defendants to plaintiff.” It is not alleged in what the fraud consisted or who perpetrated it, nor that there may not have been consideration from some other source. Defendants, in their answer, in addition to denying the allegation quoted, plead that…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Hathaway v. . County of DelawareNew York Court of Appeals · 1906
  2. Boston Steel & Iron Co. v. SteuerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1903
  3. Bowles Co. v. ClarkWashington Supreme Court · 1910
  4. Simpson v. First Nat. BankOregon Supreme Court · 1919
  5. American National Bank v. KerleyOregon Supreme Court · 1923

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Burchett v. Allied Concord Financial Corp.(Del.)New Mexico Supreme Court · 1964
  2. New Jersey Mortgage & Investment Co. v. DorseyNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1960
  3. Bancredit, Inc. v. BetheaNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1961
  4. NJ MTGE. AND INVEST. CO. v. DorseyNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1960

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

Powered by the Exa API