Legal Opinion

Dyer v. Middle Kittitas Irrigation District

Washington Supreme Court

Decided April 27, 1901No. 3574PublishedCited by 19 opinions

Appeal from Superior Court, Kittitas County.- — Hon. John B. Davidson, Judge.

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Fullerton, J.

The appellant, who was plaintiff below, instituted this action .to recover tbe price of certain labor and material alleged to have been furnished tbe respondent in tbe construction of an irrigating ditch or canal by one Peter Costello under a written contract entered into between Costello and tbe respondent. Tbe trial court sustained a general demurrer to tbe complaint, and,' upon tbe appellant’s refusal to plead further, entered a judgment for costs in favor of tbe respondent. Tbe ultimate question before us is, therefore, does the…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. RichardsIllinois Supreme Court · 1894
  2. Phillips & Colby Construction Co. v. SeymourSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
  3. Long v. Pierce CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1900
  4. Tingley v. Fairhaven Land Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1894
  5. Dobbins v. HigginsIllinois Supreme Court · 1875

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Rosellini v. BancheroWashington Supreme Court · 1974
  2. Boeing Airplane Co. v. Aeronautical Industrial Dist. Lodge No. 751District Court, W.D. Washington · 1950
  3. State v. ComerWashington Supreme Court · 1934
  4. Causten v. BarnetteWashington Supreme Court · 1908
  5. La Plante v. HubbardWashington Supreme Court · 1923

14 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