Legal Opinion

Associated Oil Co. v. Seiberling Rubber Co.

Washington Supreme Court

Decided March 9, 1933No. 24203. Department TwoPublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTolman, J.

This is an action to recover on a written guaranty. The suit was brought against The Seiberling Rubber Company, an Ohio corporation licensed to do business in this state. The complaint alleges that the guaranty was executed by the defendant, the Ohio corporation, but in the written guaranty, attached to the complaint as an exhibit, the guarantor is described as Seiberling Rubber Company, a Delaware corporation, and the guaranty is signed Seiberling Rubber Company.

The defendant answered, admitting that it was an Ohio corporation, but as to all the allegations of the complaint upon which…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Platt v. Bradner Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1924
  2. Spokane Merchants Ass'n v. Clere Clothing Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1915
  3. Mitchell v. Lea Lumber Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1906

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Gordon v. Aztec Brewing Co.California Supreme Court · 1949
  2. Abbott v. BOB'S U-DRIVEOregon Supreme Court · 1960
  3. Rena-Ware Distributors, Inc. v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 1970
  4. Harrison v. PugaCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1971
  5. United States Tobacco Sales & Marketing Co. v. Department of RevenueCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1999

20 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