Legal Opinion

Crocker v. Russell

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided December 6, 1929PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBean, J.

The amended complaint contains the allegations usual to set aside a transfer of property, made with the purpose and intent of hindering, delaying and defrauding creditors.

It was alleged that on August, 1925, and for a long time prior thereto, Frank P. Bussell was the owner in Ms own right of 100 shares of the capital stock of the Portland MacMnery company and that on that date, by a written contract, he agreed to sell said stock to T. H. Comerford and T. J. Gleie for $25,000 and received therefor $7,000 in cash and a promissory note for $18,000, payable at the rate of $1,500 and interest…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Edelstein v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1906
  2. Balfour v. DavisOregon Supreme Court · 1886
  3. Rutenic v. HamakarOregon Supreme Court · 1902
  4. Casner v. HoskinsOregon Supreme Court · 1912
  5. Long v. DufurOregon Supreme Court · 1911

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Evans v. TrudeOregon Supreme Court · 1952
  2. Nelson v. HansenOregon Supreme Court · 1977
  3. Grandy v. RobinsonOregon Supreme Court · 1947
  4. Faist v. FaistOregon Supreme Court · 1934
  5. Mallatt v. Ostrander Ry. & Timber Co.District Court, D. Oregon · 1942

1 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