Legal Opinion
Dalton Adding MacHine Sales Co. v. Lindquist
Washington Supreme Court
Decided January 20, 1926No. 19520. Department OnePublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtFullerton, J.
The appellant, a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Ohio, brought this action against the respondents, II. W. and H. R. Lindquist, alleging that they were copartners, doing business under the name of Lindquist Brothers & Run-land, to recover a balance claimed to be due as a part of the purchase price of an adding machine sold by it to the partnership. The contract sued upon is in writing, and is set out as an exhibit to the complaint. It is in the form of an order, directing the corporation to deliver to the partnership an adding machine f. o. b. at Enumclaw, Washington, and…
2Cases cited33 opinions
- Coe v. ErrolSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Brown v. HoustonSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- General Oil Co. v. CrainSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Browning v. City of WaycrossSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Sonneborn Brothers v. CuretonSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Portland Ass'n of Credit Men, Inc. v. EarleyWashington Supreme Court · 1953
- Mud Control Laboratories v. CoveyUtah Supreme Court · 1954
- Green Thumb, Inc. v. TiegsCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1986
- Scherbenske v. MaierNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1955
- Top Line Equipment Co. v. National Auction Service, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 1982
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.