Legal Opinion

Nicolai-Neppach Co. v. Poore

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided November 30, 1926PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CO SHOW, J. —

It has become the settled law of this state that where a materialman furnishes material for a building to be erected on land belonging to a person other than the purchaser of such material in order to effect a lien on the owner’s interest in the real property it is necessary to give the notice prescribed by statute: Or. L„, § 10191. It is also well settled that where the material is furnished directly to the owner of the fee that such notice is not required: Boise-Payette Lumber Co. v. Dominican Sisters, 102 Or. 314 (202 Pac. 554).

It is contended by appellant Wilhoit Springs…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Christman v. SalwayOregon Supreme Court · 1922
  2. Oregon Lumber & Fuel Co. v. NolanOregon Supreme Court · 1914
  3. James A. C. Tait & Co. v. StrykerOregon Supreme Court · 1926
  4. Boise-Payette Lumber Co. v. Dominican Sisters of Ontario & German American Trust Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1921
  5. Columbia River Door Co. v. ToddOregon Supreme Court · 1918

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Schram v. ManaryOregon Supreme Court · 1927
  2. Allison v. SchulerNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1934
  3. Andersen v. TurpinOregon Supreme Court · 1943
  4. Eastern & Western Lumber Co. v. WilliamsOregon Supreme Court · 1929
  5. Randolph v. ChristensenOregon Supreme Court · 1928

14 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