Legal Opinion

Crescent Manufacturing Co. v. Hansen

Washington Supreme Court

Decided August 17, 1933No. 24579. Department TwoPublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSteinert, J.

This is an action to recover for merchandise sold and delivered. Recovery was sought against defendant Modern Food Stores, Inc., on the ground that it had purchased and received the goods, but had not paid for them. Recovery was also sought against the other two defendants on the ground that they had issued a false financial statement concerning the assets and liabilities of Modern Food Stores, Inc., and that plaintiff, relying on such statement, had extended credit to the food stores company. Defendant Kuehl defaulted. Issues having been joined between plaintiff and the remaining defendants,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Mattson v. Eureka Cedar Lumber & Shingle Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1914
  2. Barnard Manufacturing Co. v. Ralston Milling Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1913
  3. Pacific Fruit & Produce Co. v. Modern Food Stores, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1930
  4. State v. RobertsWashington Supreme Court · 1931

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Forsythe v. Clark USA, Inc.Illinois Supreme Court · 2007
  2. Esmark, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, United Food & Commercial Workers International Union, Afl-Cio, IntervenorCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1989
  3. Stockwell v. Reynolds & Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1965
  4. Johnson v. Harrigan-Peach Land Development Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1971
  5. Carlson v. AhlWashington Supreme Court · 1940

3 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