115 Pettygrove v Rothschild Respondents

Object Type: Asset
In Folder: Supreme Court Briefs

Expand to show object metadata

115 Pettygrove v Rothschild Respondents

Dublin Core Metadata

title: Dorrette Rothschild Plaintiff and Appellee, vs F W Pettygrove Jr, M L Nathanson and Jas McIntyre Jr Defendants and Appellants, Brief of Appellee.

title: 115

creator: Dorette Rothschild

contributor: John Trumbull

date: 1890-09-15

publisher: Washington State Supreme Court

type: Civil

subject: Real Property

subject: Contracts

language: eng

format: application/pdf

description: Prior History: Appeal from Superior Court, Jefferson County.Lease – Forfeiture – Pleading – Appeal – Admissions in Brief – In an action for the forfeiture of a lease for breach of a covenant against making alterations without the consent of the lessor, it is error to strike from the answer allegations that the plaintiff had full knowledge of the making of the alterations at the time when made, that she continued to receive rent accruing thereafter, and did not object to the alterations until some time subsequently.Such error is not cured by the fact that some evidence in support of the allegations stricken from the answer was incidentally introduced, and that the court made a finding of facts thereon, when the record does not show that the order to strike was ever vacated, nor that the matter was fully gone into.Where the record shows the motion to strike out certain allegations of an answer, but fails to show the order of the court thereon, or that any exception was taken thereto, appellant’s admission in his brief and upon the argument in this court that the motion was granted, must be taken as true, coupled, however with the statement that the order was excepted to.

relation: Pettygrove v. Rothschild, 2 Wash. 6 (1891)

relation: 25 P. 907

rights: These materials are public records. Please see Washington State Court Rules: General Rules 31 for details https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/GR/GA_GR_31_00_00.pdf

Show more ▼