Court Opinion

ID: 9569438
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:13:47.024679+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:58:09.748210
License: Public Domain

O’CONNELL, J.,
dissenting.
I am of the opinion that the trial court was right in holding that the sale of stock to plaintiff was not an isolated transaction within the meaning of OES 59.120.
I understand the majority opinion to hold that more than two sales are necessary to constitute “repeated and successive” transactions. As I read the record in *567this case there were more than two sales within the meaning of OES 59.120 (2) as read with OES 59.030 (1). Under the latter sections a sale includes every “attempt to dispose of a security or interest in a security for consideration.” The record discloses one attempted sale and two completed sales. Thus there were three sales. They were all made or attempted to he made in succession for the same general purpose and all were made in a short period of time. The sales were, therefore, “repeated and successive.”①
The three transactions, taken singly or compositely, involve the payment of a relatively small amount of money and the seller’s purpose in making the sales appears to he free from any misrepresentation. But the Oregon Securities Law makes such considerations irrelevant in the proscription against the sale of unregistered securities. Perhaps the statutes should make allowances for transactions such as are involved here but they do not and the court must apply the statute as it finds it.
I would affirm the judgment.

 “We think that two sales of securities, made one after the other within a period of such reasonable time as to indicate that one general purpose actuates the vendor and that the sales promote the same aim and are not so detached and separated as to form no part of a single plan, would be ‘repeated and successive transactions.’ ” Kneeland v. Emerton, 280 Mass 371, 389, 183 NE 155, 163, 87 ALR 1 (1932), quoted with approval in Anderson v. Mikel Drilling Co., 257 Minn 487, 102 NW2d 293, 297-98 (1960) and Gales v. Weldon, 282 SW2d 522, 526 (Mo 1955).