Reynolds v. Dexter Horton & Co.
Washington Supreme Court
Appeal from Superior Court, King Coumty. Action of claim and delivery of personal property by Dexter Horton & Co., Bankers, a corporation, against Reynolds and Battersby Bros., a copartnership.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Superior Court, King Coumty. Action of claim and delivery of personal property by Dexter Horton & Co., Bankers, a corporation, against Reynolds and Battersby Bros., a copartnership. Trial by the court, which made, among others, the following findings of fact, to wit: “ Third: That on the 10th day. of May, 1890, and for a long time prior thereto, plaintiff was in the possession of the following described personal property, to wit: One thousand tons of rubble and dimension sandstone, then lying and being at what is commonly known as the Le Grande stone quarry, in Whatcom county,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Stiles, J.
— The court below found as a fact that appellees were in possession of the stone in controversy at the time when appellants entered upon the lands where it lay and removed it. Considering the character of the property — newly quarried stone — we cannot say that the court was not warranted in its finding. Unless the finding was so clearly unfounded as that it should have been set aside had it been made by a jury, we should not disturb it. It stands as a special verdict, and must be so treated. Code, § 247. Being in possession, then, it further…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Sprague v. ClarkSupreme Court of Vermont · 1868
3Cited by14 opinions
- Thorndike v. Hesperian Orchards, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1959
- Kephart v. ButcherSupreme Court of Iowa · 1864
- Johnson v. Phenix Ins. Co. of BrooklynCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
- State Ex Rel. Hayashi v. RonaldWashington Supreme Court · 1925
- Biscoe v. SandefurSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1854
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.