Legal Opinion

Vendome Turkish Bath Co. v. Schettler

Washington Supreme Court

Decided June 17, 1891No. 183PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Appeal from Superior Court, King County„ The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Scott, J.

— Appellant was a tenant occupying certain rooms in a building known as the “ Kilgen Block,” in the city of Seattle, and was conducting a bathing establishment therein. Appellee did some work for the appellant in the way of repairing, moving and refitting various steam and soil pipes, and in changing some of the other appliances used in carrying on said business, and furnished certain materials used in performing said work. Appellee’s claim being disputed, he filed a notice of a lien purporting to cover *458appellant’s leasehold interest in said…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Kellogg v. Littell & Smythe Manufacturing Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1890

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Gilbert Hunt Co v. ParryWashington Supreme Court · 1910
  2. Sagmeister v. FossWashington Supreme Court · 1892
  3. Hildebrandt v. SavageWashington Supreme Court · 1892
  4. Sound Transfer Co. v. Phinney Realty & Investment Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1913
  5. E. J. Post & Co. v. MilesNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1893

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

Powered by the Exa API