Legal Opinion

Commercial Importing Co. v. Wear

Washington Supreme Court

Decided February 28, 1935No. 25328. Department OnePublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMain, J.

This action was brought to recover the balance due on a promissory note. After the action was instituted, the plaintiff caused a writ of garnishment to be issued and served upon Howard Bargreen and Edna C. Bargreen, who answered the writ and denied that they were either indebted to the defendant or had property in their possession which they held as agent for him. The issues made upon the affidavit in support of the writ and the answer thereto were tried to the court without a jury, and resulted in findings of fact from which it was concluded that the garnishees were holding' certain personal…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Ludberg v. BarghoornWashington Supreme Court · 1913
  2. Jones v. HarrisWashington Supreme Court · 1922
  3. Low v. ColbyWashington Supreme Court · 1926
  4. Austin v. WallaceWashington Supreme Court · 1921
  5. Wolfe v. HoefkeWashington Supreme Court · 1923

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Smith v. LeberWashington Supreme Court · 1949
  2. Lamoreaux v. FosketWashington Supreme Court · 1954
  3. Kennett v. FedericiWashington Supreme Court · 1939
  4. Arcweld Manufacturing Co. v. BurneyWashington Supreme Court · 1942
  5. Griffiths v. Big Bear Stores, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1959

3 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