Legal Opinion

Blinn v. Almira Trading Co.

Washington Supreme Court

Decided April 22, 1937No. 26485. Department TwoPublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHolcomb, J.

On petition of appellants, a temporary receiver was appointed by the trial court and an order made returnable on a certain day to show cause why such appointment should not be made permanent pendente lite. On the return day, a hearing was had, both on oral and documentary evidence, amounting virtually to a trial on the merits. The only question, then, to be decided was whether or not the receivership should be continued pendente lite. The appointment of a temporary receiver was denied.

In 1914, Blinn & Howard and J. C. Keller, general merchants, and the Central Washington Warehouse Company, a…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Bergman Clay Manufacturing Co. v. M. L. BergmanWashington Supreme Court · 1913
  2. Secord v. Wheeler Gold Mining Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1909
  3. Frost v. Puget Sound Realty AssociatesWashington Supreme Court · 1910
  4. Draper v. Robinson Lettuce FarmsWashington Supreme Court · 1931
  5. Kahan v. Alaska Junk Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1920

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Scott v. Trans-System, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2003
  2. Scott v. Trans-System, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2003
  3. Henry George & Sons, Inc. v. Cooper-George, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1981
  4. Bergman v. JohnsonWashington Supreme Court · 1965

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

Powered by the Exa API