Springfield Shingle Co. v. Edgecomb Mill Co.
Washington Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Snohomish county, Black, J., entered May 4, 1908, upon .findings in favor of the plaintiff, in an action for damages for condition broken as to the quality of shingles sold and delivered by the defendant.
1Opinion of the CourtMorris, J.
This action was commenced to recover damages claimed to have been sustained in the sale of a quantity of shingles. The defendant was served by publication, following the usual return of “not found,” and affidavit of “non-residence.” Thereafter the defendant, appearing specially, moved to quash the service, which motion was, on February 13, 1908, denied, and on February 20, defendant filed its answer. The first error assigned is the denial of the motion to quash the service.
The answer reads, in part, as follows: “Now comes the defendant above named and, for answer to the complaint of the…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- White v. . MillerNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
- Hawkins v. . PembertonNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Seixas v. WoodsNew York Supreme Court · 1804
- Dounce v. . DowNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
- Swett v. ColgateNew York Supreme Court · 1822
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Polk v. MartinWashington Supreme Court · 1914
- Seattle Seed Co. v. FujimoriWashington Supreme Court · 1914
- Harrild v. Spokane School DistrictWashington Supreme Court · 1920
- Larson v. Inland Seed CompanyWashington Supreme Court · 1927
- Wallace v. L. D. Clark & SonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1918
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.