Legal Opinion

Tingley v. Bellingham Bay Boom Co.

Washington Supreme Court

Decided February 2, 1893No. 564PublishedCited by 10 opinions

Appeal from, Superior Court, Whatcom, County.

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Stiles, J.

We are not advised upon what' ground the court below sustained the defendañt’s motion for a non-suit, but, whatever may have been the ground, we think the facts in this case, as they appear from the testimony, *645should have been submitted to a jury under proper instructions.

The complaint contains two causes of action, which were improperly united, but no objection was made to the complaint upon that ground, and no criticism can now be made of the course of the plaintiff in making the improper joinder.

The defendant was a corporation organized in…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Barry v. CoombeSupreme Court of the United States · 1828
  2. Drury v. YoungCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1882
  3. Meeker v. JohnsonWashington Supreme Court · 1891
  4. Skagit Railway & Lumber Co. v. ColeWashington Supreme Court · 1890
  5. Brown v. WinehillWashington Supreme Court · 1892

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Wallace Lumber & Manufacturing Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1902
  2. Delaware Insurance v. Pennsylvania Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Georgia · 1906
  3. Tingley v. Fairhaven Land Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1894
  4. Wright v. Seattle Grocery Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1919
  5. France v. Deep River Logging Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1914

5 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