State v. Oakley
Citations
- 129 Wash. 553
- 225 P. 425
Syllabus
<p>Statutes (18) — Subject and Title — Warehousemen—Regulation of Business. The warehousemen’s act, entitled an act (1) for the prevention of fraud in the grain and hay trade, (2) for the establishment of standards, (3) regulating warehousemen and dealers, (4) defining the duties of railroads, (5) regulating tracks and connections, and (6) providing penalties, does not embrace distinct and unrelated subjects, in violation of Const. Art. II, § 19, providing that no bill shall embrace more than one subject and that subject expressed in the title; nor was it necessary to mention in the title that a bond is required of warehousemen.</p> <p>Warehousemen (5) — Liability—Conversion—Necessity for Demand. A demand upon a warehouseman to restore or deliver wheat, as contemplated by Rem. Comp. Stat., § 7001, in order to authorize an action upon his bond, is not a condition precedent to such an action where the warehouseman was insolvent and had converted the wheat and placed it out of his power to comply with the demand.</p> <p>Warehousemen (5) — Principal and Surety (47) — Action on Bond — Liability—Conditions Precedent. Since the conversion of wheat by a warehouseman renders him liable therefor without any demand, a demand is not a condition precedent to an action against the sureties upon his bond the obligation of which was to answer that the warehouseman shall faithfully perform the acts and duties enjoined upon him by law.</p> <p>Pasties (24) — Joinder—Principal and Surety — Joint and Several Bond. In the case of a joint and several bond upon which the principal is liable, the sureties may be sued separately from the principal, under Rem. Comp. Stat., § 192, giving the plaintiff the right to sue all or any of the persons severally liable on the same obligation.</p> <p>Warehousemen (5)— Conversion of Goods — Evidence — Sufficiency. A wrongful conversion of wheat by a warehouseman is sufficiently shown by proof that he consigned it to a creditor on demand that his account
Judges: Holcomb
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
3 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
21 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- McIntyre v. KavanaughSupreme Court· 1916-12-04· cited 274×
- Friend v. TalcottSupreme Court· 1913-04-07· cited 108×
- Holzman v. City of SpokaneWashington Supreme Court· 1916-06-07· cited 39×
- State v. SharplessWashington Supreme Court· 1903-03-05· cited 31×
- Salo v. Pacific Coast Casualty Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1917-02-26· cited 27×
- City of Seattle v. BartoWashington Supreme Court· 1903-02-25· cited 24×
- Baker v. Bryant Fertilizer Co.Fourth Circuit· 1921-02-01· cited 20×
- State v. AmesWashington Supreme Court· 1907-10-19· cited 17×
- Seattle & Lake Washington Waterway Co. v. Seattle Dock Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1904-07-26· cited 16×
- Maxwell v. LancasterWashington Supreme Court· 1914-09-19· cited 16×
- In re StengerE.D. Michigan· 1922-08-12· cited 15×
- Kanters v. KotickWashington Supreme Court· 1918-06-06· cited 12×
- Archibald v. Northern Pacific RailroadWashington Supreme Court· 1919-08-06· cited 11×
- Freehill v. HueniAppellate Court of Illinois· 1902-07-18· cited 6×
- O'Neill v. Montana Elevator Co.Montana Supreme Court· 1922-12-11· cited 6×
- First National Bank v. YoungWashington Supreme Court· 1898-12-08· cited 4×
- Union Elevator & Warehouse Co. v. Farmers' Warehouse Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1912-08-22· cited 4×
- Northwestern Grain Co. v. Kerr Gifford Warehouse Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1913-12-15· cited 2×
- Hagood v. ElsonTexas Supreme Court· 1858-07-01· cited 2×
- Billings v. G. Doering Grain Co.North Dakota Supreme Court· 1921-01-10· cited 2×
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.