From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Miller v. Hubbard-Wray

Oregon Court of Appeals
Nov 24, 1981
53 Or. App. 531 (Or. Ct. App. 1981)

Opinion

No. 79-210-E-2, CA 18104

On respondent's reconsideration filed July 21, reconsideration granted; former opinion filed June 29 (52 Or App, 630 P.2d 880) adhered to as modified August 24, petition for review denied November 24, 1981 ( 292 Or. 109)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County.

L.L. Sawyer, Judge.

Douglas P. Cushing and Cushing, Haberlach, Hanson Black, Medford, for petition.

No appearance contra.

Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Thornton and Van Hoomissen, Judges.


THORNTON, J.

Reconsideration granted; former opinion adhered to as modified.


Defendant Hubbard-Wray, Co., in its Petition for Review, points out that our fact statement is in error in stating that the hay baler sold by defendant to plaintiff was later returned to defendant and that defendant had accepted return of the baler and sold it. The opinion is modified accordingly.

Reconsideration granted; former opinion adhered to as modified.


Summaries of

Miller v. Hubbard-Wray

Oregon Court of Appeals
Nov 24, 1981
53 Or. App. 531 (Or. Ct. App. 1981)
Case details for

Miller v. Hubbard-Wray

Case Details

Full title:MILLER, Appellant, v. HUBBARD-WRAY CO., INC., Respondent

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Nov 24, 1981

Citations

53 Or. App. 531 (Or. Ct. App. 1981)
633 P.2d 1

Citing Cases

Robertson v. State Farm Fire and Cas.

Cf., Miller v. Hubbard-Wray Co., 52 Or. App. 897, 905-906, 630 P.2d 880, 885 (1981) (finding that purchase of…

Roach v. Mead

We can say that a hay baler, purchased for use on a farm, or a truck purchased to haul freight were purchased…