Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Hill v. Lichtenberg

Washington Supreme Court

Decided July 9, 1892No. 596PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Original Application for Mandamus.

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the eourt was delivered by

Scott, J. —

The relator brought an action before the respondent as one of the judges of the superior court of King county, against A. B. Young and Huida A. Young, for the partition of certain real estate. The cause proceeded to a hearing before the respondent who made certain findings of fact, and as a conclusion of law he found that the issues of fact as to the rights of the plaintiff in said lands, before *554a partition conld be had, should be determined by a jury trial, which the defendants had previously demanded.

There are three superior judges in King…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Harding v. WheatonSupreme Court of the United States · 1826
  2. The " Alabama " & the " Game-Cock."Supreme Court of the United States · 1876
  3. Watt v. StarkeSupreme Court of the United States · 1880

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Hill v. YoungWashington Supreme Court · 1893
  2. Dearborn Foundry Co. v. AugustineWashington Supreme Court · 1892
  3. Dalton v. Union Gap Irrigation Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1912

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API