Winningham v. Philbrick
Washington Supreme Court
Appeal. from an order of the superior court for King county, Gay, J., entered March 24, 1909, granting defendant’s motion for a new trial, in an action for slander of title, after a trial on the merits and the verdict of a jury rendered in favor of the plaintiff.
1Opinion of the CourtMorris, J.
Each of the parties hereto is the patentee and owner of patents for cutter-heads and matcher-heads. The appellant brought the action, contending that the respondent had slandered his title by maliciously and falsely stating to divers persons that the Winningham head was an infringement upon the Philbrick head, and setting forth his damages. Respondent denied the charge of malice and falsity, admitted stating to different persons that the Winning-ham head was an infringement upon his patent, and set forth such infringement. Upon the trial a jury was called, ánd on January 26, 1909, a verdict…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Clark v. Great Northern Railway Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1905
- City of Tacoma v. Tacoma Light & Water Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1897
- City of Tacoma v. Tacoma Light & Water Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1897
- Garoutte v. HaleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Morris v. WarwickWashington Supreme Court · 1906
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Sharum v. City of MuskogeeSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1914
- Idaho Farm Development Co. v. BrackettIdaho Supreme Court · 1927
- Aboltin v. HeneyWashington Supreme Court · 1911
- Latimer v. Western MacHinery ExchangeWashington Supreme Court · 1952
- Chapman v. Municipal CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.