Legal Opinion

Rushing v. Stephanus

Washington Supreme Court

Decided June 18, 1964No. 36968PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFinley, J.

Eugene Rushing and his wife (plaintift's-re-spondents) commenced this action, asserting fraud and breach of the fiduciary obligation of an agent, and sought the recovery of the commissions which they had paid to Paul Stephanus and wife (defendants-appellants). The defendants were engaged in the mortgage brokerage business under the name of the Prudential Mortgage Company. By amendment, a cause of action for negligence was added respecting certain allegedly excessive loan expenses.

The factual circumstances surrounding most of the transactions of the parties are in sharp dispute. While the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Kane v. KlosWashington Supreme Court · 1957
  2. Mattieligh v. PoeWashington Supreme Court · 1960
  3. Mele v. CerenzieWashington Supreme Court · 1952

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Guy Stickney, Inc. v. UnderwoodWashington Supreme Court · 1966
  2. Farrell v. ScoreWashington Supreme Court · 1966
  3. Williams v. Queen Fisheries, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 1970
  4. Lyle v. MooreMontana Supreme Court · 1979
  5. Brazier v. Security Pacific Mortgage, Inc.District Court, W.D. Washington · 2003

4 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