Legal Opinion

Abrahamson v. Burnett

Washington Supreme Court

Decided July 17, 1930No. 22505. Department TwoPublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMain, J.

This action is based upon a written indemnity contract. The cause was tried to the court without a jury, and resulted in findings of fact from which the court concluded that a recovery could be had. Judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $1,901.43, from which the defendant appeals.

The facts are these: The Burnett Construction Company was a corporation engaged in the contracting business. It desired a credit at the Scandinavian American Bank at Seattle to the extent of $10,000, which the bank was unwilling to give without a guaranty. April 21, 1916, Andrew Peterson,…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Daly v. RizzuttoWashington Supreme Court · 1910
  2. Sheard v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1910
  3. City of Seattle v. John C. Regan & Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1909
  4. Handsaker v. PedersenWashington Supreme Court · 1912
  5. National Surety Co. v. Fry Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1915

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Jones v. Strom Construction Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1974
  2. Newcomer v. MasiniCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1986
  3. Dixon v. Fiat-Roosevelt Motors, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 1973
  4. O'Toole v. Empire Motors, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1935
  5. Rowland v. CookWashington Supreme Court · 1934

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