Legal Opinion
Burleson v. Blankenship
Washington Supreme Court
Decided February 23, 1938No. 26883. Department TwoPublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBlake, J.
Priorto May 5, 1936, the plaintiffs owned real estate in the town of Morton, in the building upon which they ran a beer tavern. On the date mentioned, they entered into a contract whereby they agreed to sell the business and the real and personal property used in connection therewith to the defendants E. H. Blankenship and G. F. Keith, “a partnership.” The consideration for the sale was nine thousand dollars, of which two thousand dollars was paid when the contract was executed. The contract contained the following provision: “This contract cannot be assigned without the written consent of…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Randol v. ScottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Spangler v. SpanglerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1909
- Lockerby v. AmonWashington Supreme Court · 1911
- Behrens v. CloudyWashington Supreme Court · 1908
- Bonds-Foster Lumber Co. v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1909
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Trubowitch v. Riverbank Canning Co.California Supreme Court · 1947
- 224 Westlake, LLC v. Engstrom Properties, LLCCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2012
- National American Insurance Company, a Nebraska Corporation v. Jamison Agency, Inc., Gerald Bollinger, Capital Systems Corporation, National American Insurance Company, a Nebraska Corporation, Third Party v. Jamison Agency, Inc., and Gerald Bollinger, Third Party Capital Systems Corporation, Third Party v. A.J.R., Inc., Formerly Pinkerton Madden Burford, Inc., Third PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1974
- Barnett v. Buchan Baking Co.Court of Appeals of Washington · 1986
- Hunt v. Shell Oil Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1941
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.