State ex rel. Bradley v. Berry

Washington Supreme Court

State ex rel. Bradley v. Berry

42 P. 622, 13 Wash. 708, 1895 Wash. LEXIS 102

Washington Supreme Court·Decided November 11, 1895·No. No. 1932·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is a proceeding in quo warranto, and involves the validity of the organization and existence of the town of Water-ville, as a municipal corporation. This is the only question presented, and as it has been heretofore expressly decided by this court in Pullman v. Hungate, 8 Wash. 519 (36 Pac. 483), and-subsequently affirmed in State ex. rel. Rice, v. Centralia, 8 Wash. 659 (36 Pac. 484), and Abernethy v. Medical Lake, 9 Wash. 112 (37 Pac. 306), and as we are satisfied therewith, we decline to enter upon any further discussion of the question, and affirm the judgment rendered in the lower court .herein.

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

Per Curiam.

This is a proceeding in quo warranto, and involves the validity of the organization and existence of the town of Water-ville, as a municipal corporation. This is the only question presented, and as it has been heretofore expressly decided by this court in Pullman v. Hungate, 8 Wash. 519 (36 Pac. 483), and-subsequently affirmed in State ex. rel. Rice, v. Centralia, 8 Wash. 659 (36 Pac. 484), and Abernethy v. Medical Lake, 9 Wash. 112 (37 Pac. 306), and as we are satisfied therewith, we decline to enter upon any further discussion of the question, and affirm the judgment rendered in the lower court .herein.

State ex rel. Bradley v. Berry, 42 P. 622, 13 Wash. 708, 1895 Wash. LEXIS 102 (Wash. 1895).

Pincite

42 P. 622 (State ex rel. Bradley v. Berry) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related