Legal Opinion

Cherry v. Arthur

Washington Supreme Court

Decided February 23, 1893No. 789PublishedCited by 18 opinions

Appeal from Superior Cov/rt, Pierce County.

1Opinion of the Court

*788The opinion of the court was delivered by

Stiles, J.

Respondent Sherman made to respondents Cherry and Partes a mortgage of certain real estate, “together with the sawmill, machinery, out-buildings, appurtenances and fixtures of any and all kinds belonging to the same.” Among the machinery in the mill was a planer, which was bolted to the floor in such a way as to keep it from moving from its place when being used. Its only connection with the motive power was by a belt over a pulley wheel. This planer had been delivered to Sherman by appellant Arthur under a conditional sale contract, which…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. McConnell v. BloodMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1877
  2. Charles H. Dodd & Co. v. Bowles, Washington Territory1888
  3. De Saint Germain v. Wind, Washington Territory1887

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Yakima Fruit & Cold Storage Co. v. Central Heating & Plumbing Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1972
  2. Department of Revenue v. Boeing Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1975
  3. Chase v. Tacoma Box Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1895
  4. Nearhoff v. RuckerWashington Supreme Court · 1930
  5. Washington National Bank v. SmithWashington Supreme Court · 1896

13 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