Perry v. Hillman
Washington Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtMillard, J.
By amended complaint, plaintiff seeks recovery for services performed for the defendant under an oral agreement. The defendant, by answer, entered a general denial, pleaded the statute of frauds and the statute of limitations as affirmative defenses and, by cross-complaint, prayed recovery for certain moneys converted by, and for money loaned to, the plaintiff. The cause was tried to the court without a jury, resulting in findings and conclusions that all of plaintiff’s claims for compensation, except those affecting the Cathcart properties, were barred by the statute of limitations; and in…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Ah How v. FurthWashington Supreme Court · 1896
- Grave v. PembertonIndiana Court of Appeals · 1891
- Bartel v. MathiasOregon Supreme Court · 1890
3Cited by10 opinions
- Gensman v. West Coast Power Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1940
- Vogt v. HovanderCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1980
- State v. MartinezNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1979
- Trethewey v. Green River Gorge, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1943
- Hillman v. GrayWashington Supreme Court · 1931
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.