Schulte v. Schering
26 P. 78, 2 Wash. 127, 1891 Wash. LEXIS 16
Opinion
[129] The opinion of the court was delivered by
— The question raised in this case is in substance the same as that passed upon by us in McGlauflin v. Holman, at our May session, 1890. See 1 Wash. 239 (24 Pac. Pep. 439). There is an additional defect in this instrument in its not containing the name of one of the lessors in the granting clause, but this does not take it out of the principle recognized in the case cited. Judgment reversed, and cause remanded. The demurrer should be overruled, with leave to answer.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Schulte v. Schering, 26 P. 78, 2 Wash. 127, 1891 Wash. LEXIS 16 (Wash. 1891).
26 P. 78 (Schulte v. Schering) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Gabrielino Tongva Tribe v. Jonathan Stein
C.D. California, 2021
Labor Hall Ass'n, Inc. v. Danielsen
163 P.2d 167 (Washington Supreme Court, 1945)
Garbrick v. Franz
125 P.2d 295 (Washington Supreme Court, 1942)
Fry v. Weyen
70 P.2d 359 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1937)
Rowland v. Cook
38 P.2d 224 (Washington Supreme Court, 1934)
General Petroleum Corp. of California v. Harry Wright's, Inc.
8 P.2d 291 (Washington Supreme Court, 1932)
National City Bank v. Commissioner
1 B.T.A. 139 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1924)
Zinn v. Knopes
191 P. 822 (Washington Supreme Court, 1920)
Matzger v. Arcade Building & Realty Co.
141 P. 900 (Washington Supreme Court, 1914)
Forrester v. Reliable Transfer Co.
109 P. 312 (Washington Supreme Court, 1910)