Legal Opinion

Harm v. Boatman

Washington Supreme Court

Decided January 24, 1924No. 17892PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMain, C. J.

Five several actions were brought by as many plaintiffs against the defendants Boatman, Krause and Kipling, for the purpose of effecting rescission or cancellation of two certain syndicate agreements theretofore entered into between the respective plaintiffs and defendants, and to recover back moneys paid by the several plaintiffs under the syndicate agreements. Each of the plaintiffs had separate and independent causes of action against the same defendants, in each case for varying amounts, but they all involved the same questions of fact and of law. Two separate causes of action were…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Emery v. ParrottMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
  2. Faulds v. YatesIllinois Supreme Court · 1870
  3. Grant v. HardyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1873
  4. Delmonico v. RoudebushU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Colorado · 1880

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Hayes v. MullerSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1963
  2. O'Brien v. WoldsonWashington Supreme Court · 1928
  3. Bloom v. Leech, Admr.Ohio Supreme Court · 1929
  4. Morrow v. Hume, Admx.Ohio Supreme Court · 1936
  5. Gleason v. Metropolitan Mortgage Co.Court of Appeals of Washington · 1976

5 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