Legal Opinion

Hallam v. Tillinghast

Washington Supreme Court

Decided February 24, 1898No. 2609PublishedCited by 16 opinions

Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County. — Hon. John C. Stalloup, Judge.

1Opinion of the Court

Tbe opinion of tbe court was delivered by

Scott, C. J.

Tbe respondent moves to dismiss tbis cause on tbe ground tbat no appeal was taken by tbe bank, tbe contention being tbat tbe receiver could not appeal for tbe *21bank or independent of it; bnt, without considering the last question, it is shown by the record that the bank appeared in the action by Mr. Tillinghast, who was also receiver, as its attorney, and his authority to so appear was not questioned in the lower court and consequently it can not be questioned here. It follows that he could take an appeal for the bank as well as in his own…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. McLeod v. EvansWisconsin Supreme Court · 1886
  2. Nonotuck Silk Co. v. FlandersWisconsin Supreme Court · 1894
  3. Little v. ChadwickMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1890
  4. Frelinghuysen v. NugentU.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey · 1888
  5. Van Lehn v. MorseWashington Supreme Court · 1896

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Carlson v. KiesWashington Supreme Court · 1913
  2. Citizens Bank v. Bradley, ExaminerSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1926
  3. Northwest Lumber Co. v. Scandinavian American BankWashington Supreme Court · 1924
  4. Spokane & Eastern Trust Co. v. United States Steel Products Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1923
  5. Pacific Building & Loan Ass'n v. Central Bank & Trust Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1923

11 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