DocketNumber: No. 18793. En Banc.
Citation Numbers: 240 P. 565, 135 Wash. 174, 1925 Wash. LEXIS 891
Judges: Holcomb, Mitchell
Filed Date: 6/26/1925
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/16/2024
This was undoubtedly a contract for the sale of goods, wares and merchandise. Hewson v. Peterman Manufacturing Co.,
Upon the foregoing propositions the majority decision in effect overrules the decision of this court in In re Field'sEstate,
And as in the Field case, supra, it seems to me that estoppel applies to appellants in this case. They permitted the stipulated installments to be applied upon the purchase price of the stock monthly until the total purchase price was paid, then, relying upon the statutes of frauds, repudiated the contract. *Page 186
In my opinion, the respondent was and is entitled to recover, and the judgment of the trial court is right and should be affirmed.
PARKER, J., concurs with HOLCOMB, J.
Hewson v. Peterman Manufacturing Co. , 76 Wash. 600 ( 1913 )
Moore v. Coey , 33 Wash. 63 ( 1903 )
Tracy v. Barton , 139 Wash. 440 ( 1926 )
Fish Clearing House, Inc. v. Melchor, Armstrong, Dessau Co. , 174 Wash. 539 ( 1933 )
Holloway v. Bucher , 2018 Ohio 3301 ( 2018 )
Kohanowski v. Burkhardt , 2012 N.D. LEXIS 207 ( 2012 )
Brock v. Button , 187 Wash. 27 ( 1936 )
Sunset Pacific Oil Co. v. Clark , 171 Wash. 165 ( 1933 )
Puget Mill Co. v. Kerry , 183 Wash. 542 ( 1935 )