Legal Opinion

Mahan v. Springer

Washington Supreme Court

Decided January 11, 1929No. 21402. Department TwoPublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMain, J.

By amended complaint, in this case, the plaintiff sought to recover damages because the defendant O. H. Springer had failed to construct a building in accordance with the contract, plans and specific-cations. The defendants, in their answer, denied failure to properly construct the building, and by cross-complaint Springer and wife sought a judgment against the plaintiff for the balance due upon the building contract.

The cause was tried to the court without a jury and resulted in a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of one thousand dollars, from which the defendants appeal.

No…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Dunn v. PleseWashington Supreme Court · 1925
  2. Colvin v. ClarkWashington Supreme Court · 1915
  3. Western Dry Goods Co. v. HamiltonWashington Supreme Court · 1915
  4. Boe v. Hodgson Graham Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1917
  5. State ex rel. Howland v. Olympia Veneer Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1924

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Kietz v. Gold Point Mines, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1939
  2. Buob v. Feenaughty MacHinery Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1939
  3. Mahan v. SpringerWashington Supreme Court · 1930

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API