Adams v. Harmon
This text of 264 P. 356 (Adams v. Harmon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
There was a convenient place where the defendants could have dumped the surplus dirt on plaintiff’s property. Defendants saved themselves the expense of dumping it there by using plaintiff’s dirt to pay Webb for hauling it away to a distant locality. They had no right to do this, and the case comes clearly within the rule laid down by us in Sharkey Co. v. City of Portland, 58 Or. 353 (106 Pac. 331, 114 Pac. 933).
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
264 P. 356, 124 Or. 173, 1928 Ore. LEXIS 41, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-harmon-or-1928.