Anderson v. Bigelow
Washington Supreme Court
Appeal from Superior Court, Thurston County.—Hon. T. M. Reed, Jr., Judge.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Hoyt, C. J.
The respondent attacks the sufficiency of the appeal bond. The conditions therein do not exactly conform to the provisions of the statute, but there is not such a variance from the statutory requirements that it could not be enforced as a statutory bond. This being so, and the conditions being such as to protect every right of the respondent, the bond is not so defective as to require us to dismiss the ap*199peal. See McEachern v. Brackett, 8 Wash. 652 (36 Pac. 690, 40 Am. St. Rep. 922); Warburton v. Ralph, 9 Wash. 537 (38 Pac. 140); Horton v.…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Horton v. Donohoe Kelly Banking Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1896
- McEachern v. BrackettWashington Supreme Court · 1894
- Randall v. DuffCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Warburton v. RalphWashington Supreme Court · 1894
3Cited by8 opinions
- Sackman v. ThomasWashington Supreme Court · 1901
- Bryant v. BryantWashington Supreme Court · 1994
- Brier v. Traders' National BankWashington Supreme Court · 1901
- O'Connor v. EnosWashington Supreme Court · 1909
- O'Toole v. FaulknerWashington Supreme Court · 1904
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.