Legal Opinion

Colman v. Frank Waterhouse & Co.

Washington Supreme Court

Decided November 18, 1922No. 17261PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHovey, J.

— At the times material to this controversy the appellants were engaged in the brokerage business in the city of Seattle and were represented by E. R. Hill, also of that city.. The respondent was extensively engaged in domestic and foreign trade and handled a great many lines of other business, maintaining various departments for this purpose. Mr. E. J. Boxer was a salaried employee of respondent, bearing the title of manager of the domestic trade department, but during the time in question the manager of the foreign trade department was in the Orient and Mr. Boxer appears to have had the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Allen v. Olympia Light & Power Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1895
  2. McKinley v. Mineral Hill Consolidated Mining Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1907
  3. Windsor v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1905
  4. Ulrich v. Pateros Water Ditch Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1912

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Chapman v. RossWashington Supreme Court · 1929
  2. Drew-Warren Radio Electric Co. v. Western Loan & Building Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1928

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

Powered by the Exa API