Legal Opinion
Locomotive Exchange, Inc. v. Rucker Bros.
Washington Supreme Court
Decided April 1, 1919No. 15036PublishedCited by 11 opinions
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Snohomish county, Bell, J., entered March 26, 1918, upon the verdict of a jury rendered in favor of the plaintiff, in an action on contract.
1Opinion of the CourtMackintosh, J.
The respondent rented to appellant, to be used in their logging operations, a Climax logging locomotive. The agreement for the rental of the locomotive contained these provisions:
“You [the appellants] are to become responsible for the engine after it arrives at your spur, and after you are through with it you are to deliver it back to your siding on the Great Northern Bailway, in as good condition as you received it, with the exception of the natural wear, and we [the respondent] are to *279accept the locomotive at your siding under the above conditions and release you from all further…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Olsen v. VenessWashington Supreme Court · 1919
- Boe v. Hodgson Graham Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1918
- Patterson v. Wenatchee Canning Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1910
- Kingsley v. Standard Lumber Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1915
- Alaska Coast Co. v. Alaska Barge Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1914
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Davis v. Early Construction Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1963
- Burnett v. Edw. J. Dunnigan, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1931
- Jellum v. Grays Harbor Fuel Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1931
- B. & B. Building Material Co. v. Winston Bros.Washington Supreme Court · 1930
- Fowler v. GrayWashington Supreme Court · 1926
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.