Legal Opinion

Hodge v. Truax

Washington Supreme Court

Decided November 12, 1935No. 25290. En BancPublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMain, J.

This action was brought to recover the balance claimed to be due upon a written contract. The defendant denied liability and affirmatively pleaded that the contract sued upon had been pledged to the Seattle National Bank and its successors, called liquidating trustees. In the reply, it was alleged afirma-' tively that the statute of limitations had run against most of the notes as security for which the contract was pledged. The trial was to the court without a jury, and resulted in findings of fact from which it was concluded that no recovery could be had upon the contract. From the judgment…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Faxon v. All PersonsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
  2. Provident Mutual Building-Loan Ass'n v. SchwertnerArizona Supreme Court · 1914
  3. Hastings v. Lincoln Trust Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1921
  4. Pettit v. LouisNebraska Supreme Court · 1911
  5. Mercer National Bank v. White'sCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1930

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. John M. Keltch, Inc. v. Don Hoyt, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 1971
  2. Dodson v. GreunerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
  3. Olsen v. National Grocery Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1942
  4. Whiting v. RubinsteinWashington Supreme Court · 1941
  5. Kietz v. Gold Point Mines, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1940

8 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