Legal Opinion

Connell v. Tack

Washington Supreme Court

Decided March 26, 1936No. 25640. En BancPublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMain, J.

This action is based upon two promissory notes. The defendant is the administratrix de bonis non with the will annexed of the estate of Hugh M. Connell, deceased. In her answer, the defendant resisted the collection of the notes and, by counterclaim, sought certain relief. The cause was tried to the court without a jury, and resulted in a judgment disallowing the counterclaim of the defendant and dismissing the action of the plaintiff. From this judgment, the plaintiff alone appeals.

The facts which will present the question for determination may be stated as follows: Archie M. Connell, the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Ward v. MagahaWashington Supreme Court · 1913
  2. Empson v. FortuneWashington Supreme Court · 1918
  3. In re the Estate of ThompsonWashington Supreme Court · 1920
  4. Bank of Montreal v. BuchananWashington Supreme Court · 1903
  5. Harvey v. PocockWashington Supreme Court · 1916

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. In Re Dorey's EstateWashington Supreme Court · 1963
  2. In Re Sykes' EstateWashington Supreme Court · 1941
  3. Matson v. WilhelmsonWashington Supreme Court · 1939
  4. In Re Dorey's EstateWashington Supreme Court · 1963

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API