McFadden v. Mountain View Mining & Milling Co.

Washington Supreme Court

McFadden v. Mountain View Mining & Milling Co.

67 P. 1134, 27 Wash. 729, 1902 Wash. LEXIS 449

CourtWashington Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 8, 1902

DocketNo. 4192

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 67 P. 1134 (McFadden v. Mountain View Mining & Milling Co.) 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

McFadden v. Mountain View Mining & Milling Co., 67 P. 1134, 27 Wash. 729, 1902 Wash. LEXIS 449 (Wash. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Motion is,made to dismiss the appeal in this case, for the reason that the sureties did not qualify, as provided by statute, and that there was no justification whatever by such sureties, as is provided by § 6509, Bal. Code. This case falls squarely within the rule announced in Northern Counties Investment Trust v. Hender, 12 Wash. 559 (41 Pac. 913); and the motion will therefore be sustained and the appeal dismissed.

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

Per Curiam.

Motion is,made to dismiss the appeal in this case, for the reason that the sureties did not qualify, as provided by statute, and that there was no justification whatever by such sureties, as is provided by § 6509, Bal. Code. This case falls squarely within the rule announced in Northern Counties Investment Trust v. Hender, 12 Wash. 559 (41 Pac. 913); and the motion will therefore be sustained and the appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 P. 1134, 27 Wash. 729, 1902 Wash. LEXIS 449, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcfadden-v-mountain-view-mining-milling-co-wash-1902.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack