Legal Opinion

Linebaugh v. Portland Mortgage Co.

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1925PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBelt, J.

Error is predicated on the ruling of the court relative to the following question asked C. W. Hayhurst, vice-president of the defendant company, by counsel for appellant, “Did you, as representing the Portland Mortgage Co., intend to cheat or defraud the Misses Linebaugh?” Witness answered, “No, sir.” Whereupon counsel for respondents moved to strike the answer for the reason that it called for a conclusion of the witness and invaded the province of the jury. The court said, “I think the objection will have to be sustained.” Respondents contend however that the record discloses the answer was…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Shappirio v. GoldbergSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
  2. Peacock v. Barnes.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
  3. Stewart v. LarkinWashington Supreme Court · 1913
  4. Ewbank v. . LymanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
  5. Noyes v. ParsonsWashington Supreme Court · 1919

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

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. Forest Grove Brick Works, Inc. v. StricklandOregon Supreme Court · 1977
  2. Christofferson v. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY, ETC.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1982
  3. Mathies v. HoeckOregon Supreme Court · 1978
  4. Horner v. WagyOregon Supreme Court · 1944
  5. Salem Sand & Gravel Company v. City of SalemOregon Supreme Court · 1971

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

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

Powered by the Exa API