Pederson v. Parke
Citations
- 68 Wash. 482
- 123 P. 777
- 1912 Wash. LEXIS 1318
Syllabus
<p>Reference — Exceptions to Report — Sufficiency. Under Rem. & Bal. Code, § 383, requiring exceptions to specify the part or parts excepted to, general exceptions to the report of a referee are sufficiently definite and specific where it is specified that the party excepts to each and every finding as contrary to the evidence and the law and that the conclusions are not supported by the findings of fact.</p> <p>Same. Where the trial court has acted upon exceptions to the findings of a referee, the technical sufficiency of the exceptions is immaterial.</p> <p>Reference — Exceptions—Time for Piling — -Amended Exceptions. Under Rem. & Bal. Code, § 250, the trial court may extend the time for filing exceptions to the report of a referee or permit the filing of amended exceptions.</p> <p>Partnership — Accounting—Evidence as to Profits — Sufficiency. In an action for an accounting between partners, findings that there was a profit on a certain contract of $22,000 are sustained, as against findings by a referee that tbe profit was $55,000, where it appears that tbe contract was let by competitive bidding for $168,000, tbe referee’s finding showing 30 per cent profit notwithstanding that the bid was $14,000 less than any other, the building was to have been completed in one year, but took three years, and evidence tended to show that the delay increased the cost, the superintendent testified that he did not see how any profit could have been made, and a ten per cent profit would have been a reasonable one; and no vouchers or records were produced showing the profit claimed by the party whose duty it was to keep the same.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that losses caused by Ohio’s shutdown orders did not qualify as “direct physical loss of property” or “damage to property”
- summarizing that coverage in loss of use caselaw exists where the property \became practically useless for anything\
- identifying “[t]he imperative of a ‘direct physical loss’ or ‘direct physical damage’” as “the North Star of this property insurance policy from start to finish”
- defining “loss” as “[p]erdition, ruin, destruction; the condition or fact of being ‘lost,’ destroyed, or ruined, or ‘being deprived of’” (quoting Oxford English Dictionary Online (3d ed. 2021))
- identifying “[t]he imperative of a ‘direct physical loss’ or ‘direct physical damage’” as “the North Star of this property insurance policy from start to finish”
- identifying “[t]he imperative of a ‘direct physical loss’ or ‘direct physical damage’” as “the North Star of this property insurance policy from start to finish”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Gose
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.