Legal Opinion

Ethredge v. Diamond Drill Contracting Co.

Washington Supreme Court

Decided August 21, 1939No. 27584. Department TwoPublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMillard, J.

Plaintiff entered into a contract with defendant, under which the latter was obligated to drill a test well on plaintiff’s property, the drilling to proceed at the option of the plaintiff so long as financed by him in accordance with the contract. On or about five months after commencement of the work under the contract, the parties entered into a supplemental agreement. Three months later, defendant advised the plaintiff of suspension of drilling operations “under the provision of our agreement.” Within less than a month after receipt of that notice, plaintiff brought an action against…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Gudmundson v. Commercial Bank & Trust Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1931
  2. Ethredge v. Diamond Drill Contracting Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1938

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Collins v. SimmsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
  2. Paul v. PaulWyoming Supreme Court · 1981
  3. Thompson v. LennoxCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2009
  4. Thompson v. LennoxCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2009
  5. Ellern v. Superior CourtWashington Supreme Court · 1947

3 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