Legal Opinion · Dissent

Wool Growers Service Corp. v. Simcoe Sheep Co.

Washington Supreme Court

Decided July 30, 1943No. 28125PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Dissent

I concur with the majority as far as they go. However, I think the evidence is more than sufficient to hold the Federal Intermediate Credit Bank to an accounting — at least to the extent of all Simcoe funds received by it and applied on Ragan Dunnett's obligations. The correspondence in the Olney deal was sufficient to arouse its curiosity as to how Simcoe's assets were being handled. It was obvious even then that Simcoe and its assets were being used largely, if not solely, to buttress the financial positions of Wool Growers and Ragan Dunnett with the bank. And, when the financial statement…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Russell v. . McCallNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
  2. Penn v. FoglerIllinois Supreme Court · 1899
  3. Goodwin v. American Surety Co. of New YorkWashington Supreme Court · 1937

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Wool Growers Service Corp. v. Simcoe Sheep Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1943

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

Powered by the Exa API