Multnomah State Bank v. Smith

Oregon Supreme Court

Multnomah State Bank v. Smith

243 P. 1119, 117 Or. 369, 1926 Ore. LEXIS 159

DecidedFebruary 23, 1926

StatusPublished

This text of 243 P. 1119 (Multnomah State Bank v. Smith) 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

Multnomah State Bank v. Smith, 243 P. 1119, 117 Or. 369, 1926 Ore. LEXIS 159 (Or. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

BELT, J.

This is a suit in the nature of an accounting between Smith and Wilkinson, copartners, who were engaged principally in buying and selling livestock. It is agreed that inquiry should be limited to certain livestock sold at public sale in the name of Emil Crop. This controversy arises over the proceeds of the sale. The trial court found that Smith and his brother-in-law, Crop, entered into a conspiracy to defraud Wilkinson out of his interests therein, and rendered judgment in favor of such co-partners against Crop for $696.25. Judgment was also had against Smith in favor of Wilkinson for $215. There are no questions of law involved. We *370 have carefully reviewed the evidence and concur in the findings and conclusions of the lower court. The decree is affirmed, and respondent is allowed costs and disbursements. Affirmed.

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

BELT, J.

This is a suit in the nature of an accounting between Smith and Wilkinson, copartners, who were engaged principally in buying and selling livestock. It is agreed that inquiry should be limited to certain livestock sold at public sale in the name of Emil Crop. This controversy arises over the proceeds of the sale. The trial court found that Smith and his brother-in-law, Crop, entered into a conspiracy to defraud Wilkinson out of his interests therein, and rendered judgment in favor of such co-partners against Crop for $696.25. Judgment was also had against Smith in favor of Wilkinson for $215. There are no questions of law involved. We *370 have carefully reviewed the evidence and concur in the findings and conclusions of the lower court. The decree is affirmed, and respondent is allowed costs and disbursements. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 P. 1119, 117 Or. 369, 1926 Ore. LEXIS 159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/multnomah-state-bank-v-smith-or-1926.