Taylor v. Pearl, PicKell
Oregon Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
HAMMOND, J. (Pro Tempore).
This is an appeal from an order of the court requiring appellant PicKell and John S. Horton to pay over to defendant Pearl a sum jointly held by them as attorneys for the plaintiff and defendant, and from a further order denying appellant’s petition to intervene and denying his application to settle an attorney’s lien.
Initially the controversy between the plaintiff (herein referred to as Taylor) and the defendant (herein referred to as Pearl) involved transactions between those parties by reason of which, among other things, they sought an accounting between them.…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Schlecht v. BlissOregon Supreme Court · 1975
- Gas-Ice Corporation v. NewbernOregon Supreme Court · 1972
- Lee v. LeeCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1971
- Taylor v. PearlOregon Supreme Court · 1968
- M. A. Rand Corp. v. O'MearaCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2005