Legal Opinion
Burtt v. Schoening
Washington Supreme Court
Decided March 25, 1926No. 19657. Department OnePublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHolcomb, J.
This action is upon a promissory note as against' appellants, the Schoenings, and for other affirmative relief set np in the complaint.
The note is as follows:
“$5,000.00. Seattle, Wash., December 28th, 1915.
“Three years after date, for value received, I promise to pay to the order of Mar.y H. Means, at the office of Fred E. Sander, Incorporated, the sum of Five Thousand Dollars, with interest at the rate of seven per cent per annum from date until paid, payable semi-annually, principal and interest payable in U. S. Gold Coin. For value received, each and every party signing or endorsing this…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Campbell v. GowansUtah Supreme Court · 1909
- Western Security Co. v. DouglassWashington Supreme Court · 1896
- Kucher v. ScottWashington Supreme Court · 1917
- Erickson v. KendallWashington Supreme Court · 1920
- Kraus v. DowellWashington Supreme Court · 1922
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Koppler v. BuggeWashington Supreme Court · 1932
- Pfeiffer v. HeyesWashington Supreme Court · 1932
- Eatonville State Bank v. MarshallWashington Supreme Court · 1932
- Nichols v. McDougalWashington Supreme Court · 1933
- Nicklisch v. FlynnWashington Supreme Court · 1932
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.