Kelley v. Bourne

5 Citing cases

  1. Myers v. Olds

    252 P. 842 (Or. 1927)   Cited 5 times
    In Myers v. Olds, 121 Or. 249 (252 P. 842), we held that one who seeks to invoke an estoppel "must show that he exercised good faith and due diligence in endeavoring to ascertain the truth".

    "A partnership is * * a combination by two or more persons of capital, labor, or skill, for the purpose of business for their common benefit." Kelley v. Bourne, 15 Or. 476 ( 16 P. 40). See, also, Willis v. Crawford, 38 Or. 522 ( 63 P. 985, 64 P. 866, 53 L.R.A. 904); Hanthorn v. Quinn, 42 Or. 1 ( 69 P. 817).

  2. Fruit-Cleaning Co. v. Fresno Home-Packing Co.

    94 F. 845 (9th Cir. 1899)   Cited 3 times

    But, conceding that resort should be had to the law relating to grants of real estate for the purpose of defining and construing rights secured under letters patent for an invention, we do not find that under that law the patent is void because the grant of an exclusive right has been made to a co-partnership. In Kelley v. Bourne, 15 Or. 476, 484, 16 P. 40, it was held that a deed conveying real estate to a partnership by its firm name, if ineffectual to transfer the legal title, was valid and binding as a contract, and created an equitable estate in the land described. In Dunlap v. Green, 8 C.C.A. 600, 60 F. 242, the action was trespass to try title.

  3. Underwood v. Lindamood

    No.: 1:15-CV-331-HSM-SKL (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 19, 2019)

    Id. While the facts in this paragraph are taken from the State court's opinion, the Court notes that these facts are repeated by the State in closing argument, which is in the record [Doc. 30-16 p. 40-65]. Sergeant Williams stated that at the time of the November 10 interview, Underwood had an injury behind his ear, on the knuckle of his right index finger, and another on the joint near his thumb [Doc. 30-15 p. 40-43].

  4. Schmucker v. Johnson Controls, Inc.

    Case No. 3:14-CV-1593 JD (N.D. Ind. Feb. 19, 2019)   Cited 5 times
    Distinguishing newly collected information from new developments

    In the testimony to which the Plaintiffs cite, Mr. Stilz was answering a question posed by Plaintiffs' counsel about a hypothetical closure at a hypothetical facility; immediately prior to that hypothetical, Mr. Stilz testified that he did not know whether such a decision had been made for Johnson Controls, and that those decisions are not made until the facility and the agency conclude whether clean closure will be possible. [DE 294-16 p. 40-42]. The Plaintiffs attempt to defend their misrepresentation by arguing that other evidence, in combination with Mr. Stilz's testimony, supports the conclusion that Johnson Controls will have to remediate the groundwater to the maximum contaminant level.

  5. Hayes v. Killinger

    235 Or. 465 (Or. 1963)   Cited 31 times
    In Hayes, supra, this court held that "[t]he essential test in determining the existence of a partnership is whether the parties intended to establish such a relation"; that "in the absence of an express agreement * * * the status may be inferred from the conduct of the parties in relation to themselves and to third parties," and "when faced with intricate transactions that arise, this court looks mainly to the right of a party to share in the profits, his liability to share losses, and the right to exert some control over the business."

    Those are deemed the earmarks of a partnership. Cogswell v. Wilson, 11 Or. 371; Kelley v. Bourne, 15 Or. 476; Flower v. Barnekoff, 20 Or. 132; Hansen v. Bogan, 127 Or. 399, 272 P. 668; First National Bank of Eugene v. Williams, supra. We proceed to a consideration of these three factors individually.