Hattrem-Nelson & Co. v. Salmon River-Grande Ronde Highway Improvement Dist.
Oregon Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtMcBBIDE, J.
We are of the opinion that the writings set forth in defendants ’ answer should be construed together as a single contract. While the stipulations are contained in separate papers, they were entered into on the same day, dated the same day, all relate to the same transaction, and evidently must have been coincidently in the minds of the parties as factors entering into the bargain. That this is so, appears on the very threshold, by reference to the first paper of the three, contained in defendants’ answer, which recites “in connection with your proposed issue” et cetera. The “connection” was…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Uhler v. City of OlympiaWashington Supreme Court · 1915
- State v. West Duluth Land Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1899
- Spear v. City of BremertonWashington Supreme Court · 1916
- Appeal of WhelenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1885
- Hunt v. FawcettWashington Supreme Court · 1894
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Turner v. JacksonOregon Supreme Court · 1931
- Hays v. HugOregon Supreme Court · 1966
- Stone v. City of HobbsNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1950
- Duff v. Knott CountyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1931
- Bd. of Educ. of County of Hancock v. SlackWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1985
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.