Legal Opinion

Scheid v. Shields

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided August 1, 1974PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDenecke, J.

Plaintiff recovered a judgment in this action on a promissory note. The defendant appeals principally upon the ground that the plaintiff could not recover because he never had the note in his possession.

The defendant and others borrowed money from a bank to finance a new corporation. They executed a promissory note. Later, this note was replaced by a new note signed solely by defendant. Subsequently, defendant severed his ties with the corporation. The note became delinquent. The bank charged the corporate bank account for the balance, marked the note paid, and sent the note to the defendant.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Muller v. . PondirNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
  2. Investment Service Co. v. Martin Bros. Container & Timber Products Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1970
  3. Dluge v. RobinsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1964
  4. Raines v. HanzlikSupreme Court of Kansas · 1930

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Georg v. Metro Fixtures Contractors, Inc.Supreme Court of Colorado · 2008
  2. Bensinger v. ScottWyoming Supreme Court · 1981
  3. Jerstad v. WarrenCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1985
  4. Perry & Greer, Inc. v. ManningOregon Supreme Court · 1978
  5. Fore v. BlesCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1986

4 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