Legal Opinion

Sandgren v. Cain Lumber Co.

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided March 2, 1928PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCoshow, J.

The court did not abuse its discretion by permitting plaintiffs to file their amended complaint: Or. L., § 102; Zimmerle v. Childers, 67 Or. 465, 470, 471 (136 Pac. 349); York v. Nash, 42 Or. 321, 327 (71 Pac. 59).

For the purpose of proving the incorporation of the defendant Cain Lumber Company, plaintiffs tendered the certificate of incorporation. Defendant Austin objected because that was not the proper method of proving the incorporation of the defendant. We do not believe that defendant is entitled to raise the objection, especially in view of the fact that he received property from that…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Feldman v. McGuireOregon Supreme Court · 1899
  2. York v. NashOregon Supreme Court · 1903
  3. Zimmerle v. ChildersOregon Supreme Court · 1913
  4. Umpqua Valley Bank v. WilsonOregon Supreme Court · 1926

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Reid v. KierOregon Supreme Court · 1944
  2. McCargar v. Federal Securities Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1929
  3. Barde v. Portland News Publishing Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1935
  4. McCargar & McKay v. Federal Securities Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1930
  5. Oak Grove Parr, Inc. v. McCutcheon Construction Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1976

5 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