Allen v. Tacoma Mill Co.
Citations
- 18 Wash. 216
- 51 P. 372
- 1897 Wash. LEXIS 140
Syllabus
<p>PAROL EVIDENCE—RECEIPTS — PURCHASE OF LOGS—RIGHT TO UNSCALED LOGS—CONSTRUCTION OF CONTRACT.</p> <p>A receipt for money does not fall within the rule that written contracts cannot be varied or contradicted by parol, and its terms are always open to explanations, and even contradiction.</p> <p>The purchaser of a raft of logs upon a scale of logs accepted and paid for, is not entitled to retain other logs in the raft, known as culls, which were not scaled nor paid for, in the absence of an agreement that the price paid for the raft was to include culls as well as merchantable logs.</p>
Judges: Gordon
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
8 cases in this archive cite this case.
- LeDoux v. Seattle North Pacific Shipbuilding Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1921-02-25· cited 26×
- Shannon v. PrallWashington Supreme Court· 1921-03-23· cited 18×
- Phelps Lumber Co. v. Bradford-Kennedy Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1917-05-23· cited 7×
- Pickering v. RoederWashington Supreme Court· 1918-12-28· cited 4×
- Glenz v. Tacoma Railway & Power Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1923-07-24· cited 2×
- Gronning v. Elliott Bay Mill & Lumber Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1911-01-26· cited 2×
- Langford v. PringleWashington Supreme Court· 1919-01-10· cited 1×
- Henry v. HerscheyIdaho Supreme Court· 1904-01-30
Cites
2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.