Legal Opinion

Tone v. Parlaman

Washington Supreme Court

Decided November 26, 1929No. 21926. Department TwoPublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMain, J.

This action was brought to recover damages for the breach of a contract. The defendant denied liability and affirmatively pleaded three defenses. The cause was tried to the court without a jury, and resulted in findings of fact and conclusions of law sustaining a recovery. Judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiffs in the sum of $1,200, from which the defendant appeals.

The facts are these: The respondents were engaged in the clothing business in South Tacoma. One J. C. Danford had a concession, or lease, as it is called, with the United States Veterans’ Bureau, whereby he was permitted…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Heaton v. SmithWashington Supreme Court · 1925
  2. Metropolitan Building Co. v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1916
  3. Fernich-Murphy Printing Co. v. PalmerWashington Supreme Court · 1921

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Tucker v. BrownWashington Supreme Court · 1939
  2. Henry v. LindWashington Supreme Court · 1969
  3. Prager's, Inc. v. Bullitt Co.Court of Appeals of Washington · 1969
  4. Franklin v. Northern Life InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1940
  5. Nowoj v. MulalleyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1970

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