History
  • No items yet
midpage
James v. Cannell
246 P. 304
Wash.
1926
Check Treatment

*1 JAMBS V. CANNELAi. 702

Opinion Wash. Per Curiam. [139 not, opinion, Gardens, Inc., I am of that White River has the the any corporation since Katsuno caused the transfer to that at time part payment contract in the land in of his stock of his interest subscription, Katsuno; held to that contract in for title interest trust possessed right and that has not of with refer- the state the escheat any land, to his 1997 ence the at time since Katsuno transferred gift Gardens, Inc., his in River as to shares of stock the White a gave corporation daughter, minor which transfer to that full citizen- ship rights ownership purpose the of in land in this state. for judgment The should be reversed. JJ., Askren, Parker, concur with and J. Main, 2, 1926.] En Banc. June [No. 18957. Respondents. al., James, Appellant, et Claire Cannell Theresa v. county, judgment superior Spokane Appeal of the court for from a jury 6, upon J., 1924, ren- Dindsley, a June verdict of entered the plaintiff, by court, of in an action in of the direction the dered favor garnishment bond. Reversed. on a Rehearing. On Upon a majority Banc, rehearing court of the En a Per Curiam. Department opinion and re filed herein heretofore adheres to the judgment 80, ported is therefore re The in 135 237 8. Wash. Pac. proceedings with in accordance the cause for versed and remanded opinion. that 1 Reportedin 246 Pac. 304.

Case Details

Case Name: James v. Cannell
Court Name: Washington Supreme Court
Date Published: Jun 2, 1926
Citation: 246 P. 304
Docket Number: No. 18957. En Banc.
Court Abbreviation: Wash.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Log In