Lilienthal v. Kaufman
Oregon Supreme Court
239 Or. 1, 395 P.2d 543 (1964)
- Written by Denise McGimsey, JD
Facts
In exchange for funds advanced by Lilienthal (plaintiff) to finance a joint venture to sell binoculars, Kaufman (defendant) executed two promissory notes in favor of Lilienthal. The notes were executed and delivered in California. Unbeknownst to Lilienthal, an Oregon court had previously adjudged Kaufman, an Oregon resident, to be a spendthrift and appointed a guardian. Under Oregon law, all contracts made by a spendthrift were voidable after the appointment of a guardian. Kaufman’s guardian declared the notes to Lilienthal void. Lilienthal sued for payment in an Oregon court, arguing that California law should apply. Under California law, spendthrifts were not relieved of contractual obligations. The trial court declined to accept Lilienthal’s position and decided in favor of Kaufman. Lilienthal appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Denecke, J.)
Concurrence (O’Connell, J.)
Dissent (Goodwin, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
