Legal Opinion

Hendry v. Bird

Washington Supreme Court

Decided June 26, 1925No. 18793. En BancPublished

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

  1. Hewson v. Peterman Manufacturing Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1913
  2. Moore v. CoeyWashington Supreme Court · 1903
  3. Benner v. BillingsWashington Supreme Court · 1919
  4. Branding v. SargentSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1856

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API