Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hodge v. Truax

Washington Supreme Court

Decided November 12, 1935No. 25290. En BancPublished

1DissentBlake, J.

(dissenting) — The majority say:

“The general question presented is whether the appellant can recover upon the pledged agreement. This depends ultimately upon whether she has a right to take advantage of the fact that the statute of limitations had run against most of the notes for the payment of which the contract was pledged.”

At the time of Hodge’s death, the bank held his notes in the face amount of $42,248.72, to secure which Hodge had pledged the Truax contract. At that time, there was a balance due and to become due under that contract of $35,400. That contract became the property of…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Wood v. CarpenterSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
  2. Spokane County v. PrescottWashington Supreme Court · 1898
  3. Garlick v. JamesNew York Supreme Court · 1815
  4. George v. ButlerWashington Supreme Court · 1901
  5. Zimpleman v. VeederIllinois Supreme Court · 1881

10 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