Legal Opinion

Millett v. Pacific Cider & Vinegar Co.

Washington Supreme Court

Decided April 18, 1929No. 21665. Department TwoPublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtParker, J.

The plaintiff, Millett, commenced this action in the superior court for Kang county seeking recovery upon a promissory note for the principal sum of one thousand dollars, executed and delivered to him by the defendants, Vinegar Company, Lund-berg, its president, and Ford, its secretary, all executing the note as principals. The trial court, deciding the action to be of equitable cognizance by reason of the nature of the affirmative matters pleaded in the defendants’ answer and cross-complaint and in the plaintiff’s reply thereto, denied the defendants’ demand for a jury trial, proceeded with…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Lindley v. McGlauflinWashington Supreme Court · 1910
  2. Thiel v. MillerWashington Supreme Court · 1922
  3. Northern Life Insurance v. WalkerWashington Supreme Court · 1923
  4. Peterson v. Philadelphia Mortgage & Trust Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1903
  5. Santmeyer v. ClemmancsWashington Supreme Court · 1928

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Watkins v. Siler Logging Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1941
  2. Ranta v. GermanCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1969
  3. Brady v. FordWashington Supreme Court · 1935
  4. Miller v. O'BrienWashington Supreme Court · 1943
  5. Theodore v. Washington National Investment Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1931

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