Reihsen v. Burlingame Co.

Oregon Supreme Court

Reihsen v. Burlingame Co.

282 P. 554, 131 Or. 208, 1929 Ore. LEXIS 277

DecidedOctober 9, 1929

StatusPublished

This text of 282 P. 554 (Reihsen v. Burlingame 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.

Bluebook

Reihsen v. Burlingame Co., 282 P. 554, 131 Or. 208, 1929 Ore. LEXIS 277 (Or. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

RAND, J.

This is a suit for rescission and a companion case to Sharkey v. The Burlingame Co. this day decided. The two cases were argued together and upon the same testimony. The facts are identical except as to the description of the property sold and the further fact that plaintiff did not solicit others to attend the lecture' courses. The same rules were applicable to both cases and from this it follows that, since the decree in that case was affirmed, this should be and it is so ordered.

Affirmed,

Belt .and Brown, JJ., absent. Rossman, J., dissenting.

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

RAND, J.

This is a suit for rescission and a companion case to Sharkey v. The Burlingame Co. this day decided. The two cases were argued together and upon the same testimony. The facts are identical except as to the description of the property sold and the further fact that plaintiff did not solicit others to attend the lecture' courses. The same rules were applicable to both cases and from this it follows that, since the decree in that case was affirmed, this should be and it is so ordered.

Affirmed,

Belt .and Brown, JJ., absent. Rossman, J., dissenting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 P. 554, 131 Or. 208, 1929 Ore. LEXIS 277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reihsen-v-burlingame-co-or-1929.