Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Rogers Walla Walla, Inc. v. Willis Shaw Frozen Express, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided June 14, 1979No. 2903-3Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partRoe, J.

(concurring in part, dissenting in part) — I agree with the majority except I would not reverse the trial court in its denial of prejudgment interest. I do not think the salvage is liquidated because it is not established by mere computation or known standards. Ryan v. Plath, 20 Wn.2d 663, 148 P.2d 946 (1944), is in point. In Ryan the action involved the accounting of the proceeds of an apple crop. No prejudgment interest was allowed because the account was controverted as in the instant case, and the claim was not liquidated until proof was taken and the account approved by the trial court.…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Mall Tool Co. v. Far West Equipment Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1954
  2. Ryan v. PlathWashington Supreme Court · 1944

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

Powered by the Exa API