Pennicard v. Coe
Decision Date | 31 January 1928 |
Citation | 124 Or. 423,263 P. 920 |
Parties | PENNICARD v. COE. [*] |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Department 2.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County; Louis P. Hewitt, Judge.
Suit by C.J. Pennicard against U. C. Coe. From a judgment dismissing the suit, plaintiff appeals. Decree set aside and rendered.
This is a suit for the rescission of a contract for the sale and purchase of certain securities, founded upon the alleged false and fraudulent representations made by the defendant through his agents, and the alleged violation of the provisions of the Blue Sky Law of this state. From a judgment dismissing the suit, plaintiff appeals.
Thomas Mannix, of Portland, for appellant.
Ralph H. King, of Portland (W. Lair Thompson, of Portland, on the brief), for respondent.
On May 12, 1922, U. C. Coe, defendant herein, executed an agreement and declaration of trust in the city of Great Falls, Cascade county, Mont., and on June 20th of that year caused the same to be recorded in the office of the county recorder of that county. The objects of the agreement are stated in the following language:
The body of the instrument shows that U. C. Coe, Tom Taylor, and H. H. McGovern were named therein as trustees; but the names of Taylor and McGovern appear to have been erased therefrom. Furthermore, the instrument apparently was never executed by either Taylor or McGovern.
Pursuant to the provisions of the above declaration of trust, the defendant issued and delivered to plaintiff certificates for 230 units, and received in payment therefore the sum of $900. The first certificate thus issued and delivered reads as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kneeland v. Emerton
...Skinner Packing Co., 108 Neb. 105, 108, 187 N. W. 874;Vercellini v. U. S. I. Realty Co., 158 Minn. 72, 196 N. W. 672;Pennicard v. Coe, 124 Or. 423, 434, 435, 263 P. 920;Ashley & Rumelin, Bankers, v. Brady, 41 Idaho, 160, 166, 238 P. 314;Karamanou v. H. V. Greene Co., 80 N. H. 420, 124 A. 37......
-
Schramm v. Bank of California, Nat. Ass'n
... ... certificate were incompatible with the suggestion that such ... failure rendered the agreement void. It held that the action ... could be maintained. See, also, Lloyd-Garretson Co. v ... Marvin & Co., 128 Or. 191, 274 P. 128, and Pennicard ... v. Coe, 124 Or. 423, 263 P. 920 ... Let us ... now examine the statute and review the defendant's ... criticism of it, and then endeavor to apply the rules ... announced in Uhlmann v. Kin Daw, in determining whether the ... defendant may retain all ... ...
-
State v. Simons
...were very similar in tenor to the instruments involved in State v. Whiteaker, supra, 118 Or. 656, 658, 247 P. 1077, an Pennicard v. Coe, 124 Or. 423, 432, 438, 263 P. 920, which were held to be securities within the contemplation of the Oregon act. In the present case, the solicitation of e......
-
Downs v. National Share Corp.
...sales by unlicensed persons or corporations are void. Salo v. Northern Savings & Loan Ass'n, 140 Or. 351, 12 P.2d 765, 767; Pennicard v. Coe, 124 Or. 423, 263 P. 920; v. Coe, 124 Or. 436, 263 P. 925, and Bond v. Coe, 124 Or. 440, 263 P. 924. e v. Albert E. Peirce & Co., 147 Or. 5, 31 P.2d 7......