Charles H. Dodd & Co. v. Bowles
Washington Territory
Error to the District Court holding terms at Walla Walla. Eirst District. The appellants, Charles H. Dodd & Co., entered into a contract to sell certain farm machinery, which contract is set out in full in the opinion of the court, to certain parties named Eillmore and Davenport.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court holding terms at Walla Walla. Eirst District. The appellants, Charles H. Dodd & Co., entered into a contract to sell certain farm machinery, which contract is set out in full in the opinion of the court, to certain parties named Eillmore and Davenport. The contract consisted of several notes signed by said Eillmore and Davenport aggregating $2,100. Each of the notes provided for the sale of the machinery by said appellants to Eillmore and Davenport, after the payment of said notes in full by the purchasers, and that until such payment the legal title to said…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Turner
The court below adopted as its findings of fact in this case an agreed statement of facts, presented by the parties in lieu of testimony. Bindings of fact, made by the court, and filed, are a part of the record. (Code, secs. 451 and 464.)
The point is not well taken, therefore, that the only matters of record before this court are the pleadings in the lower court and the judgment of the lower court.
Turning to the merits of the case, we find that the plaintiffs in error were claimants in the court below of certain farm machinery, seized by the defendant in error, Bowles, under execution, as the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Harkness v. RussellSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Cadwell v. First National BankWashington Supreme Court · 1891
3Cited by4 opinions
- Cherry v. ArthurWashington Supreme Court · 1893
- Wittler-Corbin Machinery Co. v. MartinWashington Supreme Court · 1907
- Quinn v. Parke & Lacy Machinery Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1892
- Redewill v. GillenNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1887