Hendry v. Bird
Washington Supreme Court
1Dissent
This was undoubtedly a contract for the sale of goods, wares and merchandise. Hewson v. Peterman Manufacturing Co., 76 Wn. 600,136 P. 1168, Ann. Cas. 1915D 346, 51 L.R.A. (N.S.) 398;Benner v. Billings, 107 Wn. 1, 181 P. 19. That being so, it could be governed only, if at all, by § 5825, Rem. Comp. Stat. [P.C. § 7745]. The employment of respondent was only incidental. He could have quit his employment at any time, and under the decisions of this court as to corporation employees, the corporation could have discharged him at any time. Notwithstanding that, respondent could have paid the full…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Hewson v. Peterman Manufacturing Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1913
- Moore v. CoeyWashington Supreme Court · 1903
- Benner v. BillingsWashington Supreme Court · 1919
- Branding v. SargentSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1856