Legal Opinion

Marshall v. Hillman Investment Co.

Washington Supreme Court

Decided April 16, 1929No. 21483. Department OnePublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHolcomb, J.

In this action, appellant prayed specific performance of a certain earnest money receipt, made a part of his complaint by exhibit; and included in his action a prayer for the reformation of the earnest money receipt by adding and incorporating therein, after the words “Market Street,” the words “now East 107th St. projected,” and for the conveyance to him of Lot 41 in Block 4, of Riviera Beach, Division No. 3 Addition to Seattle, King county, "Washington.

A copy of the earnest money receipt, so far as material here, is as follows:

“Receipt for Earnest Money.
“Seattle, Washington, April 23, 1925.
“…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Cushing v. Monarch Timber Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1913
  2. Broadway Hospital & Sanitarium v. DeckerWashington Supreme Court · 1907
  3. Rogers v. LippyWashington Supreme Court · 1918
  4. Hendry v. BirdWashington Supreme Court · 1925
  5. Nance v. ValentineWashington Supreme Court · 1918

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Roeder Co. v. Burlington Northern, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1986
  2. Geoghegan v. DeverWashington Supreme Court · 1948
  3. Martinson v. CruikshankWashington Supreme Court · 1940
  4. Richardson v. Taylor Land & Livestock Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1946
  5. Lager v. BerggrenWashington Supreme Court · 1936

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API