Reports of Cases Decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon: 1889/1880, Հատոր 18
Oregon. Supreme Court, William Wallace Thayer, Joseph Gardner Wilson, Thomas Benton Odeneal, William Henry Holmes, Julius Augustus Stratton, Reuben S. Strahan, George Henry Burnett, Robert Graves Morrow, James W. Crawford, Frank A. Turner, Bellinger, Charles Byron
West Publishing Company, 1890
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Այլ խմբագրություններ - View all
action adverse possession agreement alleged allowed amount answer appellant applied authority cause charge circuit court circumstances claim Code common complaint considered constitute construction contract corporation counsel Court-Lord Court-Thayer damages deed defendant delivered determine direct duty effect entered entitled evidence exceptions executed exercise existed facts filed follows further give given grounds hand held injury instructions interest issue judgment jury land liable matter ment necessary negligence notice objection operation Opinion ordinary Oregon owner particular party perform person plaintiff Portland possession premises presented proper question Railroad railway reason received record recover referred refused regard removal respondent result road rule Statement statute street sufficient suit taken testified testimony thereof tion track train trial unless wife witness wood
Էջ 358 - Every person who shall use or display the genuine label, trade mark, or form of advertisement of any such person, association or union, in any manner not authorized by such person, union or association, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not less than three months nor more than one year, or by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars nor more than two hundred dollars, or both.
Էջ 37 - The decree of the court below must, therefore, be reversed, and...
Էջ 398 - The first proposition is a general one, to this effect: that the plaintiff, in an action for negligence, cannot succeed if it is found by the jury that he has himself been guilty of any negligence, or want of ordinary care which contributed to cause the accident.
Էջ 218 - ... etc. As a result, the court found, as a conclusion of law, that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief in equity, and that his suit be dismissed.
Էջ 197 - ... the judgment must be reversed and the case remanded to the circuit court, with directions to set aside the verdict and to order a new trial.
Էջ 383 - ... the accident could have been avoided by the exercise of ordinary care and diligence on the part of the defendant, the defendant is liable.
Էջ 398 - But there is another proposition equally well established, and it is a qualification upon the first, namely: that though the plaintiff may have been guilty of negligence, and although that negligence may, in fact, have contributed to the accident, yet if the defendant could in the result, by the exercise of ordinary care and diligence, have avoided the mischief which happened, the plaintiff's negligence will not excuse him.
Էջ 50 - For every man's land is, in the eye of the law, enclosed and set apart from his neighbor's; and that either by a visible and material fence, as one field is divided from another by a hedge, or by an ideal, invisible boundary, existing only in the contemplation of law, as when one man's land adjoins to another's in the same field.