Casey-Hedges Co. v. Wilcox

131 P. 205, 72 Wash. 605, 1913 Wash. LEXIS 1522
CourtWashington Supreme Court
DecidedApril 5, 1913
DocketNo. 11024
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 131 P. 205 (Casey-Hedges Co. v. Wilcox) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Casey-Hedges Co. v. Wilcox, 131 P. 205, 72 Wash. 605, 1913 Wash. LEXIS 1522 (Wash. 1913).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an action to recover the possession of certain personal property which it is asserted the plaintiff sold to the Syverson Lumber & Shingle Company, a corporation, on a conditional sale contract, which was filed in the office of the county auditor of Chehalis county within the time provided by statute, Rem. & Bal. Code, § 3670. In its articles of incorporation, the Syverson Lumber & Shingle Company designated the city of Tacoma, in Pierce [606]*606county, as its principal place of business. “The principal place of business must be held to be the residence of the corporation.” First Nat. Bank v. Wilcox, ante p. 473, 130 Pac. 766, 131 Pac. 203. The contract was not filed in the county wherein “at the date of the vendee’s taking possession of the property the vendee resides.” Upon the authority of the case cited, the court correctly held that the plaintiff had no cause of action.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

General Motors Acceptance Corporation v. Nuss
192 So. 248 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1939)
Weber Showcase & Fixture Co. v. Waugh
42 F.2d 515 (W.D. Washington, 1930)
Burroughs Adding Machine Co. v. Wilcox
131 P. 206 (Washington Supreme Court, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
131 P. 205, 72 Wash. 605, 1913 Wash. LEXIS 1522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/casey-hedges-co-v-wilcox-wash-1913.