Legal Opinion · Dissent

Ferris v. Blumhardt

Washington Supreme Court

Decided February 23, 1956No. 33045Published

1Dissent

*406Hill, J.

(dissenting) — I agree with the majority that there is an inescapable inference that the Ferrises accepted the offer made by the Witzigs in their letters, and that the trial court erred in its conclusion that no contract to devise ever existed or that the contract was too indefinite for specific performance.

The majority, proceeding upon a theory suggested by neither party and never considered by the trial court, concludes that, although there had been a contract to devise, the Ferrises had breached it or both parties to it, Anna Witzig and the Ferrises, had abandoned it. I cannot…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Eaton v. EatonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1919
  2. Bruce v. MoonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1900
  3. Skinner v. RascheCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1915
  4. Sample v. Butler UniversityIndiana Supreme Court · 1937
  5. Swingley v. DanielsWashington Supreme Court · 1923

6 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