Stoops v. Carlisle-Pennell Lumber Co.
Washington Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtMackintosh, J.
The essential facts will be thus summarized:
The appellant operates a lumber mill and owns, in connection therewith, the homes in which its employees reside, one of which it rented in 1920 to the respondents. Mr. Stoops was employed as a carpenter, and in June, 1921, complained to the appellant’s carpenter foreman that the front steps of his residence were defective and should he repaired. The foreman at that time promised the repairs would be made, but the promise was not fulfilled. Afterwards, and before the 4th of July, 1921, the complaint was renewed, as was the promise. Thereafter the…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Anderson v. Inland Telephone & Telegraph Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1898
- Shea v. Seattle Lumber Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1907
- Crooker v. Pacific Lounge & Mattress Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1902
- French v. First Avenue Railway Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1901
- Morgan v. Rainier Beach Lumber Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1909
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Pritchard v. TerrillOregon Supreme Court · 1950
- Johnson v. DyeWashington Supreme Court · 1924
- Taylor v. StimsonWashington Supreme Court · 1958
- Ionin v. E. D. & M. Corp.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1930