Camarot v. Lentz
This text of 410 P.2d 240 (Camarot v. Lentz) 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
In this -action plaintiff alleged that his assignor had loaned money to -defendant and asked for judgment on the alleged debt. Defendant, a real estate broker who had sold property for plaintiff’s assignor, denied any debt and alleged the money was paid to bim as [479]*479part of a commission due him for the sale of property. The trial court found that the money was paid to defendant as a commission hut that the commission had been over paid and entered a judgment against defendant for the surplus amount the court found that defendant had received.
The evidence supports the trial court’s findings and the judgment entered. Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
410 P.2d 240, 242 Or. 478, 1966 Ore. LEXIS 610, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/camarot-v-lentz-or-1966.