Alberts v. Rasher, Kingman, Herrin
Washington Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
The appellant sued the respondent to recover the amount alleged to he due for goods sold and delivered. The answer of the respondent was a general denial. The jury returned a verdict for the appellant. The respondent moved for a new trial, setting up various statutory grounds therefor, among others, that the evidence was insufficient to justify the verdict. The motion was granted generally, the court assigning no reason therefor. From the order granting the new trial, this appeal has been taken.
The record presented to us shows that there was a positive conflict in the evidence at the trial.…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Rotting v. ClemanWashington Supreme Court · 1895
- Welever v. Advance Shingle Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1904
- Hughes v. Dexter Horton & Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1901
- Angus v. WambaWashington Supreme Court · 1908
- Faben v. MuirWashington Supreme Court · 1910
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- State v. BrentWashington Supreme Court · 1948
- Stickney v. CongdonWashington Supreme Court · 1926
- Piper v. PiperWashington Supreme Court · 1924
- Peterson v. Northwestern Mutual Life InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1925
- Stuckrath v. SchwarzWashington Supreme Court · 1941
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.