Court Opinion

ID: 9559179
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:24:00.669149+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:56.324112
License: Public Domain

*463HOWELL, J.,
dissenting.
I agree that this court has held that the Oregon Securities Law must be liberally construed to protect the public. However, I do not believe that the sales by a rancher of a fractional interest in three different horses constitute "sales” within the purview of ORS 59.015 et seq.
The statute defining a security, ORS 59.015(13)(a), sets forth a list of obvious securities, such as "stock,” "bond,” "debenture,” and, "in general, any interest or instrument commonly known as a 'security’.”
In Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Hudson et al., 190 Or 458, 226 P2d 501 (1951), we stated:
"The primary purpose of the Blue Sky Law is to protect investors and prevent, so far as possible, the sale of fraudulent and worthless corporate or quasi-corporate stocks and securities, and to regulate the sale of such securities. * * *” 190 Or at 467.
It is going to be a shock to a rancher who sells a fractional interest in a horse or a registered bull to his neighbors to learn that his sale is considered in the same category as the sale of a worthless corporate stock or security and subject to the Blue Sky Law.
I do not believe the legislature intended the plaintiffs’ sale in the case at bar to be subject to the Oregon Securities Law, and I would affirm.