Riddle v. Miller
23 P. 807, 18 Or. 460, 1890 Ore. LEXIS 143
Opinion
The only question of law arising upon [461] this record wre considered and decided in Wood v. Rayburn, 18 Or. 3. We see no- reason to depart from the conclusions there announced. After a careful examination of the evidence we have reached the same conclusions that the court below did. We do not think a particular examination of the facts disclosed by the evidence is necessary.
The decree appealed from must therefore be affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Riddle v. Miller, 23 P. 807, 18 Or. 460, 1890 Ore. LEXIS 143 (Or. 1890).
23 P. 807 (Riddle v. Miller) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Partlow v. Clark
653 P.2d 568 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1982)
Wilson v. Willamette Industries, Inc.
569 P.2d 609 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1977)
Chaffin v. Solomon
465 P.2d 217 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1970)
Hawkins v. Savage
110 F. Supp. 615 (D. Alaska, 1953)
Matsuda v. Noble and Decoster
200 P.2d 962 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1948)
Thompson v. Hendricks
245 P. 724 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1926)
Teshner v. Roome
210 P. 160 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1922)
Saling v. First Nat. Bank
182 P. 140 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1919)
First Nat. Bank v. Gage
142 P. 539 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1914)
Mertens v. Northern State Bank
135 P. 885 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1913)
May v. Emerson
96 P. 454 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1908)
Jennings v. Lentz
93 P. 327 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1908)
Haines v. Connell
87 P. 265 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1906)
Security Trust Co. v. Loewenberg
62 P. 647 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1900)
Laurent v. Lanning
51 P. 80 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1897)
Meier v. Hess
32 P. 755 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1893)