Legal Opinion

E. J. Struntz Planing Mill Co. v. Paget

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided December 8, 1927PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCoshow, J.

Plaintiff was not prejudiced by the order of the court permitting defendant Paget to be substituted for Leona Lessing. Paget, having succeeded to the title to the property after the suit was instituted, was entitled to have the suit conducted to termination in the name of his grantor, defendant Leona Lessing. It was neither necessary nor proper for him to have been substituted: Smith et al. v. Cram, 113 Or. 313, 320 (230 Pac. 812); Fildew v. Milner, 57 Or. 16, 21 (109 Pac. 1092). Paget gained no advantage by being substituted. Plaintiff was not put to any disadvantage. The order of…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Fildew v. MilnerOregon Supreme Court · 1910
  2. Smith v. CramOregon Supreme Court · 1925
  3. Simpson v. CarsonOregon Supreme Court · 1884
  4. Oregon Railway & Navigation Co. v. Oregon Real Estate Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1882

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Schram v. ManaryOregon Supreme Court · 1927
  2. Clatsop County v. TaylorOregon Supreme Court · 1941
  3. E. J. Struntz Planing Mill Co. v. PagetOregon Supreme Court · 1927
  4. Schram v. ManaryOregon Supreme Court · 1927

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

Powered by the Exa API