Waterman & Katz v. Phinney
This text of 1 Wash. Terr. 415 (Waterman & Katz v. Phinney) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington Territory primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Opinion by
Concerning this motion to dismiss, we are agreed, that the sheriff’s return in the notice of filing the precipe is bad. The return of service upon “A. Phinney” simply does not well show a service upon the defendant Arthur Phinney.
We are also agreed, that the return should show that service was had within the county of the sheriff. Put we are not prepared to unite in opinion, that the return of service as had at Port Ludlow does not sufficiently certify it as had in Jefferson county.
To the other point, made by the defendant on this motion, the opinion of the court is opposed.
Motion allowed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1 Wash. Terr. 415, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waterman-katz-v-phinney-washterr-1873.