ROBERT L. SPOO, APPELLANT,
v.
FERRIS F. BOOTHE ET AL., APPELLEES

9th Cir. | 1971-12-20
No. 25409
453 F.2d 405 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (1971)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that the appellant, who had resold the property before filing suit, was still the real party in interest under Oregon law and could maintain the action.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant sued appellees for breach of warranty of title and fraud after purchasing personal property that he alleged was worthless. The district cour…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from an order dismissing his diversity action on the ground that appellant, whose citizenship created diversity, was not the real party in interest. Appellant sought damages for breach of appellees’ warranty of title to personal property and, alternatively, damages for fraud in inducing him to purchase the personalty that he alleged was worthless. The district court ruled that appellant’s resale of the personalty prior to instituting suit deprived him of his status as the real party in interest and that the real party in interest was appellant’s vendee, a corporation domiciled in Oregon, as were the appellees.

Because there was no federal right in issue, the district court was required to apply the law of Oregon in ascertaining appellant’s status as an appropriate party. (Peters v. Lines (9th Cir. 1960) 275 F. 2d 919.) Under Oregon law, the appellant’s right to maintain his action for breach of warranty in the sale of personalty is unaffected by the vendee’s resale of the property prior to the institution of suit. (J. L. Latture Equipment Co. v. Gruendlar Papent C. & P. Co. (1930) 133 Or. 421, 289 P. 1067.)

Appellees argue that the order can nevertheless be affirmed because the appellant could not prevail on the merits. The district court did not purport to reach the merits, and neither do we.

The order is reversed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw