Legal Opinion

Hatten MacHinery Co. v. Bruch

Washington Supreme Court

Decided April 12, 1962No. 35912PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

uFinley, C. J.

Appellant Hatten Machinery Company commenced this action against John N. Bruch and his wife to recover alleged unpaid rental and incidental charges (parts and services) due on a lease of certain earth-moving equipment. Respondent Bruch counter-claimed, alleging that the equipment was not as warranted and, therefore, caused Bruch to suffer damages measured by advance rental paid, transportation expense, extra labor expense and repairs.

The Hatten Machinery Company is engaged in the business of selling and renting construction equipment, and maintains offices in Seattle. The…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Thorndike v. Hesperian Orchards, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1959
  2. Hoisting Engine Sales Co. v. . HartNew York Court of Appeals · 1923
  3. Holland Furnace Co. v. KorthWashington Supreme Court · 1953
  4. Lester v. PercyWashington Supreme Court · 1961
  5. Olsson v. HansenWashington Supreme Court · 1957

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Glenn Dick Equipment Co. v. Galey Construction, Inc.Idaho Supreme Court · 1975
  2. Electrical Advertising, Inc. v. SakatoArizona Supreme Court · 1963
  3. Hiskey v. City of SeattleCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1986
  4. Holmes Packaging MacH. Corp. v. BinghamCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
  5. Northwest Collectors, Inc. v. GerritsenWashington Supreme Court · 1968

1 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