Skip to main content
· 7/22/1913

Stewart & Holmes Drug Co. v. Reed

Citations

  • 74 Wash. 401
  • 133 P. 577
  • 1913 Wash. LEXIS 2068

Syllabus

<p>Sales — Conditional Sales — Retaking Pboperty — Evidence—Stjeeiciency. Findings that the vendor of a soda fountain under a conditional sales contract had elected to retake the same and cancel the debt, are sustained where it appears that shortly after the vendee had sold out his business to a third party, the vendor attempted to sell it to such third party, and made arrangements to have it boxed up and shipped back, and delayed for some time making claim upon such third party for its price as a garnishee under the sales-in-bulk act, until the garnishee had paid up the vendee in full.</p> <p>Same — Retaking Pbopebty — Election. An election by the vendor to retake property conditionally sold, finally precludes the assertion of remedies under the contract; and the election may be invoked by a third person in defense of the assertion of such remedies against him.</p> <p>Fraudulent Conveyances — Sales-in-Bulk—Creditors—Conditional Vendors — Notice. The vendor in a conditional sales contract, who has not elected to retake the property and cancel the debt, is protected as a creditor under the sales-in-bulk act where his vendee makes a sale of goods in bulk without complying with the act, and it is not necessary that he give notice to the fraudulent vendee that he intends to rely upon the statute.</p>

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • “Findings of fact which closely follow and which may to a certain extent parrot [statutory] requirements . . . are not rendered invalid if they are sufficiently specific to permit meaningful review.”
  • considering impact of continuing relationship with other parent, also considering stability of housing
  • “Findings of fact which closely follow and which may to a certain extent parrot [statutory] requirements . . . are not rendered invalid if 20 No. 79763-8-I/21 they are sufficiently specific to permit meaningful review.”
  • where defense counsel moved for admission of polygraph testimony, defense counsel cannot claim error after trial court granted its motion
  • “Clear, cogent, and convincing evidence exists when the ultimate fact in issue is shown by the evidence to be ‘highly probable’”
  • where defense counsel moved for admission of polygraph testimony, defense counsel cannot claim error after trial court granted its motion

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Ellis

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.