Legal Opinion

Follis v. Brinkman

Washington Supreme Court

Decided November 21, 1957No. 34232PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Per curiam

In this action, the plaintiffs sought:(1) A judicial determination of the existence of an oral partnership dealing in real estate;(2) An accounting of the profits of the alleged partnership; and(3) Enforcement of an alleged oral agreement between Messrs. Follis and Brinkman, requiring the latter to make a will in favor of the former.

The defendant, Brinkman, cross-complained for money allegedly due him under five promissory notes.

*311After trial to the court, judgment was entered for the defendant on his cross-complaint as to four of the notes, and plaintiffs’ cause of action was dismissed.…

2Cited by6 opinions

  1. Williams & Mauseth Insurance Brokers, Inc. v. ChappleCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1974
  2. Greenwood v. BogueWashington Supreme Court · 1959
  3. Barefield v. BarefieldWashington Supreme Court · 1966
  4. Follis v. BrinkmanWashington Supreme Court · 1957
  5. Williams & Mauseth Insurance Brokers, Inc. v. ChappleCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1974

1 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