Snodgrass v. Wallowa Milling & Grain Co.
Oregon Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtCoshow, J.
The ruling of the court on the admissibility of the testimony is not seriously urged in this court. The ruling of the court on the admission and rejection of testimony did not constitute reversible error. No new principle is involved justifying any further enlargement in this opinion on those rulings.
It is contended by the appellant, who was defendant in the Circuit Court, that the instrument given to the plaintiff as security by the Inland Motor Company did not constitute a chattel mortgage; that not having been recorded it was void as to creditors; that the plaintiff having consented to the…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Utah Construction Co. v. Western Pacific Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1916
- Maier v. FreemanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- La Grande National Bank v. BlumOregon Supreme Court · 1895
- Farmers' Bank v. SalingOregon Supreme Court · 1898
- Grover v. Hawthorne EstateOregon Supreme Court · 1911
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Bailey v. OppOregon Supreme Court · 1938