Freytag v. Northern Pacific Railroad
Washington Supreme Court
Appeal from District Gourt, Kittitas County. Tbe facts are fully stated in tbe opinion. Tbe assignment of a mere expectancy or possibility will be supported as a contract entitling tbe assignee to a specific performance as soon as tbe assignor bas acquired tbe power to perform.
Read the full summary
Appeal from District Gourt, Kittitas County. Tbe facts are fully stated in tbe opinion. Tbe assignment of a mere expectancy or possibility will be supported as a contract entitling tbe assignee to a specific performance as soon as tbe assignor bas acquired tbe power to perform. Mitchell v. Winslow, 2 Story, 630; Woodworth v. Sherman, 3 Story, 171. That tbe vendee may maintain an action where tbe obligation of tbe vendor is in tbe form of a title bond, under tbe authorities cannot be questioned. 1 Hill, Vend., p. 430, §5; Ensign v. Kellogg, 4 Pick. 1; Doolittle v. Gook, 75 Ill. 354; Sterling…
1Opinion of the Court
*216The opinion of the court was delivered bj
Stiles, J.
In tbis case separate general demurrers to the complaint were sustained, and the action was dismissed in the court below. The appeal is on the part of the plaintiff from that disposal of the case, he having declined to amend. The complaint, after the formal part, was as follows:
“Second: That on or about the third day of September, 1884, the above named defendant, B. E. Craig, made and entered into a certain contract, in writing, to and with the above named plaintiff, a true copy of which is hereto attached and marked ‘ Exhibit A,’ and made a…
2Cited by20 opinions
- Green v. Buckner's adm'rSupreme Court of Virginia · 1835
- Jones & Carter v. RobertsCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 1809
- Brooke v. YoungSupreme Court of Virginia · 1824
- Brooke v. YoungSupreme Court of Virginia · 1824
- Brooke v. YoungSupreme Court of Virginia · 1824
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.