Puget Mill Co. v. Duecy
Washington Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtMillard, J.
On the theory that defendant’s removal of sand and gravel from land in Snohomish county, sold to defendant by plaintiff under an executory written contract, constituted a breach of a provision of the contract which reserved unto plaintiff seller absolute rights to all minerals in or upon the land, plaintiff brought this action to restrain defendant from further removing sand and gravel from the land covered by the contract of sale and to recover the value of all sand and gravel, theretofore removed by defendant from the land in question. Upon the ground that the complaint did not state facts…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Dillon v. BarnardSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Meek v. HurstSupreme Court of Missouri · 1909
- Crockett v. McLanahanTennessee Supreme Court · 1902
- Torgerson v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1923
- Matthews v. Oklahoma Publishing Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1923
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- Adams County v. Smith and Dakota Collieries Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1946
- State Land Department v. Tucson Rock and Sand Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1971
- Abbey v. StateNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1972
- O'Neil v. Building Service Employees International Union, Local No. 6Washington Supreme Court · 1941
- New Mexico and Arizona Land Company v. ElkinsDistrict Court, D. New Mexico · 1956
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.