King v. Oregon Short Line R.

165 P. 349, 84 Or. 429, 1917 Ore. LEXIS 250
Oregon Supreme Court·Decided June 6, 1917·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Mr. Justice McCamant

delivered the opinion of the court.

Plaintiff calls attention to the absence of assignments of error in the abstract on appeal. Under the authority of Salene v. Isherwood, 74 Or. 35, 39 (144 Pac. 1175), and Dundas v. Grand View Land Co., 79 Or. 379, 380 (155 Pac. 365), this condition of the record precludes the consideration of the questions discussed in appellant’s brief. We find that the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The judgment is affirmed. Affirmed.

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

King v. Oregon Short Line R., 165 P. 349, 84 Or. 429, 1917 Ore. LEXIS 250 (Or. 1917).

165 P. 349 (King v. Oregon Short Line R.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Arbogast v. Pilot Rock Lumber Co.
336 P.2d 329 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1959)
Nealan v. Ring
184 P. 275 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1919)
Malloy v. Marshall-Wells Hardware Co.
173 P. 267 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1918)