Legal Opinion

Seattle National Bank v. Trefethen

Washington Supreme Court

Decided May 9, 1932No. 23503. Department TwoPublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMain, J.

This action is based upon a promissory note. The cause was tried to the court without a jury, and resulted in findings of fact from which the court concluded that a recovery could be had. Judgment was entered against Daniel B. Trefethen individually and against the community composed of himself and wife for the balance due upon the note, from which they appeal.

The respondent’s brief opens with a motion to strike the statement of facts because not filed within the required time. The judgment from which the appeal was prosecuted was entered April 14, 1931. A motion for new trial, which had been…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Moss v. MossWashington Supreme Court · 1931
  2. Potlatch Lumber Co. v. Ferry CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Russell v. MitchellWashington Supreme Court · 1910

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Washington Beauty College, Inc. v. HuseWashington Supreme Court · 1938
  2. State Ex Rel. Gunning v. OdellWashington Supreme Court · 1961
  3. Klickitat County v. BeckCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2001
  4. Klickitat County v. BeckCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2001
  5. Ullom v. City of RentonWashington Supreme Court · 1940

8 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