Legal Opinion

Jones v. Howe-Thompson, Inc.

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided May 1, 1933PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BOSSMAN, J'.

The appellant has not brought before us any part of the evidence, and confines its effort to show reversible error to an attack upon the complaint. The complaint alleges that the defendant is a corporation; that B. Gr. Thompson is its manager; that defendant is engaged in the business of selling appliances to beauty shop proprietors; that May 14, 1931, Lucille Colvard, proprietor of a beauty shop, contracted to purchase from the defendant a permanent wave machine; that the machine was thereupon installed in her shop; that Thompson represented himself as being an expert in…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. CrunkIndiana Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Cederson v. Oregon Navigation Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1900
  3. Kornbrodt v. Equitable Trust Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1931
  4. Turney v. Southern Pac. Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1904
  5. Ladd & Bush v. RamsbyOregon Supreme Court · 1882

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of LenskeOregon Supreme Court · 1974
  2. Johnson v. Dave's Auto Center, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1970
  3. Rice v. HYSTER COMPANYOregon Supreme Court · 1975
  4. Clubb v. HansonOregon Supreme Court · 1975
  5. Johnson v. Dave's Auto Center, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1970

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

Powered by the Exa API