Legal Opinion · Dissent

King County v. Stringer

Washington Supreme Court

Decided June 30, 1924No. 18049Published

1Dissent

Parker and Mitchell, JJ.

(dissenting in part) — - We concur in the foregoing opinion in so far as it. holds Stringer liable for all monies received by him,, and in so far as it holds the surety company for all monies collected by Stringer while he was sheriff, but. dissent from the foregoing opinion in so far as it holds that the surety company is liable for any portion of the monies collected by Stringer after he ceased to be= sheriff.

*301The official bond of Stringer was executed by him and the surety company at the beginning of and for the 1919-1920 term here in question, and was conditioned,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. County of King v. FerryWashington Supreme Court · 1893
  2. People ex rel. Logan County v. ToomeyIllinois Supreme Court · 1887
  3. Moss v. State ex rel. Jefferson Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1847
  4. State ex rel. County of St. Louis v. DaileyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1877
  5. State v. GrimsleySupreme Court of Missouri · 1853

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

Powered by the Exa API