Russell v. Mutual Lumber Co.

This case has already twice been before this court. Russell v. Mutual Lumber Co., 124 Wash. 109, 213 Pac. 461, 216 Pac. 891; Russell v. Mutual Lumber Co., 134 Wash. 508, 236 Pac. 96.

The complaint is not very different from those which are fully set out in our previous decisions. It alleged that, on October 18, 1913,- respondent, Mutual Lumber Company, entered into-a written contract with a Mr. Bordeaux concerning the removal of timber. At that time, the respondent owned and had in operation a sawmill located near Tenino, in Thurston county, which •we shall hereinafter ■ refer to as. “the…