Legal Opinion

Smith v. Keating

Washington Supreme Court

Decided May 22, 1958No. 34309PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFoster, J.

This judgment on a promissory note must be reversed because of the error of the trial court in withdrawing the defense of payment from the jury and directing a verdict for the respondents (plaintiffs).

The note (for $6,750) represented the balance of the purchase price ($26,750) of the plaintiffs’ home under an executory real-estate contract. To that complaint, appellants pleaded payment, and in support of that affirmative defense, produced evidence summarized as follows:

Respondents listed their home for sale with Charles P. Wolf, then a licensed real-estate broker in Seattle. On August 27,…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Hogan v. KyleWashington Supreme Court · 1894
  2. Brown v. AitkenSupreme Court of Vermont · 1916
  3. Stevens v. IrwinWashington Supreme Court · 1925
  4. Underwood v. TewWashington Supreme Court · 1893
  5. Ross v. JohnsonWashington Supreme Court · 1933

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Valley Land Office, Inc. v. O'GRADYWashington Supreme Court · 1967
  2. Wickwire v. McFaddenAlaska Supreme Court · 1978
  3. Bishop Ryan High School v. LindbergNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1985
  4. Zwink v. Burlington Northern, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 1975
  5. Shell Oil Co. v. Livingston Fertilizer & Chemical Co.Court of Appeals of Washington · 1973

2 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