Logan Et Ux. v. Illinois River Dev. Co.
This text of 281 P. 123 (Logan Et Ux. v. Illinois River Dev. Co.) 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.
Opinions
See 21 R.C.L. 458. *Page 572 amount less the attorneys' fees or offer what it would consider reasonable attorneys' fees.
The other point is made on the alleged question of fact presented by the allegation in the complaint of having given notice and the denial of that allegation on information and belief. The contract required plaintiffs to give the required notice to The First National Bank of Southern Oregon. The notice is alleged to have been so given. The notice was sufficient whether or not defendant had knowledge of it. Defendant could have ascertained absolutely whether or not notice was given as alleged in the complaint. It did not do that, but denied on in-information and belief that such notice was given. Such a denial under the circumstances was sham. It was the duty of defendant to ascertain whether or not the notice had been given and plead accordingly.
Petition for rehearing denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
281 P. 123, 130 Or. 570, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/logan-et-ux-v-illinois-river-dev-co-or-1929.