Alcorn v. Kohler

Oregon Supreme Court

Alcorn v. Kohler

277 P.2d 1009, 203 Or. 19, 1954 Ore. LEXIS 289

DecidedDecember 22, 1954

StatusPublished

This text of 277 P.2d 1009 (Alcorn v. Kohler) 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.

Bluebook

Alcorn v. Kohler, 277 P.2d 1009, 203 Or. 19, 1954 Ore. LEXIS 289 (Or. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

PEE CUEIAM.

Suit to rescind partnership agreement and lease involving a ranch in Malheur county on the grounds of fraud and deceit. The trial court found for plaintiffs. Defendant appeals.

We have carefully considered the record and briefs and are of the opinion that the cause of suit al[20]*20leged was sustained by a great preponderance of the evidence. The one day’s inspection of the premises by plaintiffs in midwinter would not apprize them of the true condition of the property in question.

The plaintiffs, on learning of the falsity of the representations, were not barred from maintaining this suit even though they had been guilty of a breach since they would have a legal right to repudiate the contract upon becoming aware of the misrepresentations. 5 Willston on Contracts, § 1526.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PEE CUEIAM.

Suit to rescind partnership agreement and lease involving a ranch in Malheur county on the grounds of fraud and deceit. The trial court found for plaintiffs. Defendant appeals.

We have carefully considered the record and briefs and are of the opinion that the cause of suit al[20]*20leged was sustained by a great preponderance of the evidence. The one day’s inspection of the premises by plaintiffs in midwinter would not apprize them of the true condition of the property in question.

The plaintiffs, on learning of the falsity of the representations, were not barred from maintaining this suit even though they had been guilty of a breach since they would have a legal right to repudiate the contract upon becoming aware of the misrepresentations. 5 Willston on Contracts, § 1526.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 P.2d 1009, 203 Or. 19, 1954 Ore. LEXIS 289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alcorn-v-kohler-or-1954.