Legal Opinion

Floe v. Anderson

Washington Supreme Court

Decided April 27, 1923No. 17580PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.

— The complaint states two causes of action, each upon a promissory note signed by Laura Floe. The notes were presented to and rejected by the executor of her estate. The answer to the first cause of action denied the execution of the note and affirmatively plead that the note was barred by the statute of limitations. The answer to the second cause of action denied the execution of the note.' Further, by way of counterclaim and cause of action, the answer set up that the plaintiff, as agent for Laura Floe, had collected rents and insurance money belonging to her in the sums of $212.50 and…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Mills v. . DavisNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
  2. Robertson v. O'NeillWashington Supreme Court · 1912
  3. Haver v. SchwyhartMissouri Court of Appeals · 1890
  4. Levy v. SimonWashington Supreme Court · 1922
  5. Johnson v. ClarkWashington Supreme Court · 1922

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. State v. MesarosWashington Supreme Court · 1963
  2. Johnston v. Medina Improvement Club, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1941
  3. Peoples National Bank of Washington v. National Bank of Commerce of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1966
  4. Johnson v. PetersonWashington Supreme Court · 1953
  5. Wickwire v. ReardWashington Supreme Court · 1951

6 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