Legal Opinion

Thompson v. Larsen

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided January 19, 1926PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCoshow, J.

The defendant relies on this appeal on this statement from 1 Wigmore on Evidence, 218, Section 159:

“The fact that a creditor during the period when he might have enforced his demand by suit, if he had one, was in indigent circumstances and needed the use of his means is a circumstance tending to fortify the presumption that the demand has been paid or otherwise satisfied, * * .” 21 R. C. L. §§ 135, 155.

In re Keenan’s Estate, 73 Hun, 177, (25 N. Y. Supp. 877); Bean v. Tonnele, 94 N. Y. 381 (46 Am. Rep. 153); Hamilton v. Hamilton, 18 Pa. St. 20 (55 Am. Dec. 585); Morrison v. Collins, 127 Pa. 28…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Bean v. . TonneleNew York Court of Appeals · 1884
  2. Morrison v. CollinsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
  3. In re Keenan's EstateNew York Supreme Court · 1893

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Leonard v. KingOregon Supreme Court · 1929
  2. Handy v. US Bank National AssociationCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2008
  3. In re Thornton Co.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1926

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

Powered by the Exa API