Legal Opinion

Burlingham-Meeker Co. v. Thomas

Washington Supreme Court

Decided April 6, 1961No. 35632PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFoster, J.

Appellant corporation, plaintiff below, appeals from a judgment on a verdict in favor of respondent, 1 defendant in the superior court. Appellant sued on a promissory note and upon an open account. Respondent cross-complained for damages because the dairy feeds sold him by appellant were adulterated.

Appellant sells feed and farm supplies, and the respondent is a dairyman. This appeal concerns solely the respondent’s cross-complaint for damages for adulterated custom-mixed dairy feed. The judgment is for $16,078.25, the amount of the verdict.

Shortly before the trial, in response to discovery…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Smith v. BachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  2. Kingwell v. HartWashington Supreme Court · 1954
  3. Palin v. General Construction Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1955
  4. Walker v. SiegWashington Supreme Court · 1945
  5. Lasting Products Co. v. GenoveseSupreme Court of Virginia · 1955

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Smith v. SeiblyWashington Supreme Court · 1967
  2. Cerjance v. KehresCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1980
  3. Amende v. Pierce CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1967
  4. Guyton v. Temple Motors, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1961
  5. Bellah v. BrownWashington Supreme Court · 1967

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