Legal Opinion

McFarland v. Ratcliffe

Washington Supreme Court

Decided April 13, 1932No. 23464. Department OnePublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBeeler, J.

Prior to September 30, 1929, the respondent sold to the appellant a combined harvester on a conditional sales contract. Default in payment having occurred, the respondents waived the forfeiture clause in the contract and brought suit for the unpaid purchase price, alleged to be $2,198.95. At the same time, they caused to be issued a writ of attachment and levied upon the combined harvester and upon other farming implements belonging to the appellant. Also; several writs of garnishment directed to various creditors were issued and served. In his answer in that case, the appellant pleaded…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Seattle Crockery Co. v. HaleyWashington Supreme Court · 1893
  2. Republic Truck Sales Corp. v. PeakCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  3. Morrissey v. HurstSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1924
  4. Maxwell v. GriffithWashington Supreme Court · 1898
  5. Market Operating Corp. v. CrullWashington Supreme Court · 1931

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Olsen v. National Grocery Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1942
  2. Taylor v. WilburWashington Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Elsman v. Glens Falls Indemnity Co.New York Supreme Court · 1933

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

Powered by the Exa API