Legal Opinion

Armour & Co. v. Becker

Washington Supreme Court

Decided March 17, 1932No. 23529. Department TwoPublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHolcomb, J.

Respondent sued to recover, from all of appellants, $293.14 alleged to be due upon a balance of account for goods, wares and merchandise sold and delivered by respondent to appellants at their special instance and request. It is alleged that appellant Birk-maier, on April 26, 1929, entered into an agreement with respondent guaranteeing the payment of the sum of five hundred dollars, which agreement is marked as an exhibit and attached to and made a part of the complaint. The exhibit is entitled “Guaranty — Limited in Amount” and provides that respondent, therein designated as the seller,…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. International Shoe Co. v. PinkusSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
  2. Boese v. KingSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
  3. Union Securities Co. v. SmithWashington Supreme Court · 1916
  4. In re Voluntary Assignment of TarnowskiWisconsin Supreme Court · 1926
  5. State ex rel. Strohl v. Superior CourtWashington Supreme Court · 1899

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Warren v. Washington Trust BankWashington Supreme Court · 1979
  2. Copper Leaf, Llc, V. Ace Paving Co. Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2024
  3. Tacoma Grocery Co. v. DoerschWashington Supreme Court · 1932
  4. Kanaway Seafoods, Inc. v. Pacific Predator, AK Registration No. AK3565ANDistrict Court, D. Alaska · 2023
  5. State v. McCollumWashington Supreme Court · 1943

1 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