Legal Opinion

Board of Trade v. Hayden

Washington Supreme Court

Decided May 11, 1892No. 311PublishedCited by 16 opinions

Appeal from. Superior Cowrt, Whatcom County. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Stiles, J. —

These were four cases the trials of which were consolidated. In two of the cases the theory of the *264complaints was that appellant and her husband were actual partners in the mercantile business under the firm name of J. P. Hayden & Co. In the other two the theory was that the community composed of "the husband and wife was ' carrying on business, and that the husband and wife were its agents. The evidence did not tend to ’support either theory as pleaded, but was directed wholly to an effort to show that P P. Hayden was doing. business under…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Hendricks v. . IsaacsNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
  2. Haas v. ShawIndiana Supreme Court · 1883
  3. Artman v. FergusonMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
  4. Suau v. . CaffeNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
  5. Bassett v. ShepardsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1883

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Kennedy v. UpshawTexas Supreme Court · 1885
  2. Haggett v. HurleySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1898
  3. Hoaglin v. C. M. Henderson &. Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1903
  4. In Re Dunn's EstateWashington Supreme Court · 1948
  5. Miethke v. Pierce CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1933

11 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