Legal Opinion

Hurst v. Merrifield

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided July 18, 1933PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBean, J.

Defendant Atkinson filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings; also a motion for a dismissal of the suit as to him. The court denied the motions and allowed plaintiffs to file an amended complaint, which was filed and was of the purport above set forth.

According to our view of the case, we are not at this time prepared to say that the amendment was material. It was within the sound discretion of the trial court. An amendment may be permitted in the discretion of the court at any time before trial. § 1-906, Oregon Code 1930. The words “before trial” refer to a trial upon the issues of fact.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Zastrow v. KnightSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1930
  2. Young Men's Ass'n v. CroftOregon Supreme Court · 1898
  3. State v. Pacific Live Stock Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1919
  4. Portland Trust Co. v. NunnOregon Supreme Court · 1898

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Marquam Investment Corp. v. MyersCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1978
  2. Merit v. LoseyOregon Supreme Court · 1952
  3. Peters v. DietrichOregon Supreme Court · 1933
  4. Hulin v. VeatchOregon Supreme Court · 1934
  5. Walin v. YoungOregon Supreme Court · 1947

9 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