Coleman v. Montgomery

53 P. 1102, 19 Wash. 610, 1898 Wash. LEXIS 433
CourtWashington Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 12, 1898
DocketNo. 2788
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 53 P. 1102 (Coleman v. Montgomery) 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
Coleman v. Montgomery, 53 P. 1102, 19 Wash. 610, 1898 Wash. LEXIS 433 (Wash. 1898).

Opinion

Pee Curiam.

Respondent brought this action to recover for legal services rendered under a contract alleged to have been entered into with the attorney in fact and agent of the appellant. The case was tried to a jury and from a judgment in plaintiff’s favor the defendant has appealed. The errors assigned relate to rulings of the court during the course, of the trial. The principal ground of alleged error relied upon was the admission, over respondent’s objection, of what purported to be a copy of a power of attorney executed by the appellant, and of record in the office [611]*611of the recorder of conveyances of Multnomah county, Oregon, by whom it purports to have been certified. This was received in evidence without any proof concerning the laws of that state on the subject, but the objection to this evidence was not sufficiently definite to raise the grounds urged here. The objection was evidently considered by the court as going only to the form of the certification. This is emphasized by the question which the court addressed to counsel.

There was competent evidence tending to support the verdict, and the judgment entered upon it must be affirmed.

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

Related

State v. Casteneda-Perez
810 P.2d 74 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1991)
State v. Evans
634 P.2d 845 (Washington Supreme Court, 1982)
State v. Boast
553 P.2d 1322 (Washington Supreme Court, 1976)
State v. Roby
263 P.2d 273 (Washington Supreme Court, 1953)
Kull v. Department of Labor & Industries
152 P.2d 961 (Washington Supreme Court, 1944)
Murray v. City of Seattle
165 P. 895 (Washington Supreme Court, 1917)
Evergreen Farm v. Attalia Land Co.
157 P. 487 (Washington Supreme Court, 1916)
Kinnane v. Conroy
101 P. 223 (Washington Supreme Court, 1909)
Anderson v. New York Life Insurance
76 P. 109 (Washington Supreme Court, 1904)
Sanders v. Stimson Mill Co.
75 P. 974 (Washington Supreme Court, 1904)
Kroenert v. Falk
72 P. 1010 (Washington Supreme Court, 1903)
Washington Mill Co. v. Marks
67 P. 565 (Washington Supreme Court, 1902)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
53 P. 1102, 19 Wash. 610, 1898 Wash. LEXIS 433, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coleman-v-montgomery-wash-1898.