Cherry v. Arthur
Washington Supreme Court
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
- McConnell v. BloodMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1877
- Charles H. Dodd & Co. v. Bowles, Washington Territory1888
- De Saint Germain v. Wind, Washington Territory1887
3Cited by18 opinions
- Yakima Fruit & Cold Storage Co. v. Central Heating & Plumbing Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1972
- Department of Revenue v. Boeing Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1975
- Chase v. Tacoma Box Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1895
- Nearhoff v. RuckerWashington Supreme Court · 1930
- Washington National Bank v. SmithWashington Supreme Court · 1896
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.