Legal Opinion

O'Connor v. Tesdale

Washington Supreme Court

Decided July 28, 1949No. 30758PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRobinson, J.

On April 1, 1945, C. R. O’Connor, respondent in this action, purchased a dairy from L. Tesdale, appellant. Attached to the warranty bill of sale was a list of the equipment sold in connection with the transaction. Among the items on this list was one Sealright bottle hooder, which should not have been included therein, as it was not the property of appellant, but was under lease to him. Whether it was included through the fault or oversight of the seller or the buyer, was a matter of dispute. The only testimony on the point was given by the parties themselves, and was so contradictory that…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Luellen v. City of AberdeenWashington Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Butler v. Supreme CourtWashington Supreme Court · 1909
  3. W. S. Maxwell Co. v. Southern Oregon Gas Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1937
  4. Morse v. MooreSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1891
  5. Morse v. Union Stock Yard Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1891

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Madden v. Public Utility District No. 1Washington Supreme Court · 1973
  2. Rutter v. RutterWashington Supreme Court · 1962
  3. Ball v. Stokely Foods, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1950
  4. Nakanishi v. FosterWashington Supreme Court · 1964
  5. Klein v. American Luggage Works, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1960

7 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