Legal Opinion

Thompson v. Dockstader

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided November 2, 1994No. 92-5-51; CA A79820PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

BUTTLER, S. J.

In this action on a promissory note, the trial court, without a jury, entered findings of fact1 from which it concluded that the note was not enforceable, “because it was given without consideration.” The action was then dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff appeals, contending that no consideration was necessary, because the note was given “as security for an antecedent debt.” Former ORS 73.4080.2 We consider the evidence and all favorable inferences that may be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to defendant, the prevailing party. Samoth Financial Corp. v. Mr. Motor’s…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Musulin v. Woodtek, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1971
  2. SAMOTH FINANCIAL CORPORATION, LTD. v. Mr. Moto's Coffee, Tea & Antiques, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1980
  3. Ross v. FrazenOregon Supreme Court · 1971

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Hutchinson, Anderson, Cox & Coons, P. C. v. CronkCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1999

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

Powered by the Exa API