Legal Opinion

Paulsell v. Peters

Washington Supreme Court

Decided August 1, 1941No. 28323PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Steinert, J. —

Plaintiff brought suit against a real estate broker and his bondsman, a surety company, to recover for the misappropriation and embezzlement, by the broker, of certain sums of money alleged to belong to plaintiff. At the trial, had before the court without a jury, the defendant broker defaulted, and the cause proceeded to judgment against the defendant surety company alone. Upon entry of judgment, the surety company appealed.

The facts as shown by the record are as follows: During 1937 and 1938, defendant Frank E. Peters was engaged in the real estate brokerage business in…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Salo v. Pacific Coast Casualty Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1917
  2. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. HydeOregon Supreme Court · 1934
  3. Witter v. Massachusetts Bonding & InsuranceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1933
  4. Wiggins v. Pacific Indemnity Co.California Court of Appeal · 1933
  5. Maryland Casualty Co. v. Grays Harbor CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1930

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

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Estate of Jordan v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Hewson Construction, Inc. v. Reintree Corp.Washington Supreme Court · 1984
  3. White v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 1957
  4. State Ex Rel. Pirak v. SchoettlerWashington Supreme Court · 1954
  5. Walla Walla Port District v. H. G. PalmbergCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1960

16 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