Legal Opinion

Barrington v. Murry

Washington Supreme Court

Decided February 25, 1950No. 30997PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSimpson, C. J.

Plaintiff, as assignee, instituted this action to recover the sum of $3,580.89 from defendants, which ' sum had been advanced to them by Oscar Tjersland, Jewell Gibson and S. C. Barrington. A trial to the court, sitting without a jury, resulted in the entry of a judgment favorable to plaintiff.

The findings of fact made by the court, twenty-five in number, were very full and complete. They recite that certain named individuals, namely, Oscar Tjersland, Jewell Gibson and S. C. Barrington, acting as joint adventurers, had contributed “joint capital” and had empowered plaintiff to employ such…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. In Re the Estate of MartinsonWashington Supreme Court · 1948
  2. Poutre v. SaundersWashington Supreme Court · 1943
  3. Paulson v. McMillanWashington Supreme Court · 1941
  4. In Re Gallinger's EstateWashington Supreme Court · 1948
  5. Olsen v. John Hamrick's Tacoma TheatresWashington Supreme Court · 1941

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Rayonier, Incorporated v. F. Arnold PolsonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1968
  2. Malnar v. CarlsonWashington Supreme Court · 1996
  3. Malnar v. CarlsonWashington Supreme Court · 1996
  4. Refrigeration Engineering Co. v. McKayCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1971
  5. Penick v. Employment Security DepartmentCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1996

7 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