Davis v. First Nat. Bank

161 P. 931, 86 Or. 474
CourtOregon Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 28, 1916
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 161 P. 931 (Davis v. First Nat. Bank) 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
Davis v. First Nat. Bank, 161 P. 931, 86 Or. 474 (Or. 1916).

Opinions

Opinion

Per Curiam.

1. The First National Bank of Albany, Oregon, commenced an action against W. H. Davis and Worth Huston to recover the amount of their promissory note. They answered admitting the allegations of the complaint and as plaintiffs also filed a cross-bill in equity, making as parties defendant Alfred C. Schmitt, Linnhaven Orchard Company, a corporation, E. C. Roberts, Chas. H. Wieder, Geo. M. Crowell, Owen Bean, F. J. Fletcher and J. M. Hawkins, admitting the execution of the note, but alleging it was in fact the note of the Linnhaven Orchard Company and that the makers and the defendants who were made parties to the suit were sureties for that company. The trial court rendered a decree granting the relief prayed for in the cross-bill and the First National Bank and Alfred C. Schmitt appealed, but they did not cause the notice to be served upon the defendants Wieder, Crowell or Hawkins. The plaintiffs ’ counsel, contending that the parties who were not served with the notice are adverse, move to dismiss the appeal for that reason.

By the decree Alfred C. Schmitt and the other parties who were made defendants in the cross-bill were held to be jointly and severally liable for the payment of the promissory note which was executed by the [477]*477plaintiffs to the bank. A reversal or modification of that decree would be an advantage to the parties who were not served with the notice of the appeal, and for that reason they are not adverse: Lane v. Wentworth, 69 Or. 242 (133 Pac. 348, 138 Pac. 468); United States National Bank v. Shefler, 77 Or. 579 (143 Pac. 51, 152 Pac. 234).

The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.

Motion Denied.

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

Related

Marc Nelson Oil Products, Inc. v. Grim Logging Co.
110 P.3d 120 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2005)
Hunter v. Allen
148 P.2d 936 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1944)
Morley Const. Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co.
90 F.2d 976 (Eighth Circuit, 1937)
Admiral Oriental Line v. United States
86 F.2d 201 (Second Circuit, 1936)
United States Rubber Co. v. Kimsey
26 P.2d 565 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1933)
Cranston v. Stanfield
261 P. 52 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1927)
Citizens' Bank v. Knudson
252 P. 969 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1926)
Josephian v. Lion
227 P. 204 (California Court of Appeal, 1924)
Anderson v. Burgess
223 P. 244 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1924)
Vian v. Hilberg
196 N.W. 153 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1923)
McFarland v. Hueners
190 P. 584 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1920)
Slattery v. Gross
187 P. 300 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1920)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
161 P. 931, 86 Or. 474, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-first-nat-bank-or-1916.