Legal Opinion · Dissent

Fick v. Jones

Washington Supreme Court

Decided March 4, 1936No. 25685. En BancPublished

1DissentBeals, J.

(dissenting) — As stated in the majority opinion, respondent sued upon the check referred to therein. Appellants did not demur to the complaint, but answered, admitting the execution and delivery of the check February 18, 1929, and that the check was presented to appellant J. Will Jones during the month of July, 1933, and payment thereof demanded, such payment having then been refused. By way of an affirmative defense, appellants pleaded payment of the “check and the debt evidenced thereby.”

Upon the trial, the check was offered in evidence and received without objection, respondent’s evidence…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Millar v. MillarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
  2. Miller v. LucoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  3. Rovegno v. San Jose Knights of Columbus Hall Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
  4. Dawson v. Tulare Union High SchoolCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
  5. Inderbitzen v. Lane HospitalCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932

17 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