salutary rule in Washington

1976It would not, we stated in Gavin v. Everton, 19 Wn. (2d) 785, 144 P. (2d) 735 , be a salutary rule to require a witness to couch his testimony in the phraseology of our opinions.

1947In the cited case, we stated: “It would not, we stated in Gavin v. Everton, 19 Wn. (2d) 785, 144 P. (2d) 735 , be a salutary rule to require a witness to couch his testimony in the phraseology of our opinions.

1949In the case of Zittel v. Meyer, 107 Wash. 585 , 182 Pac. 585 , in affirming a judgment in favor of two of three joint purchasers of land against the third purchaser, this court said: “In Stewart v. Preston, 77 Wash. 559 , 137 Pac. 993 , we committed ourselves to the salutary rule that the fraud of an agent who was orally employed to purchase real estate for his principal may not be avoided by the plea that his agency was not evidenced in writing.” *188 The facts disclosed by the record in the case at bar bring this case within the rule laid down in the Merriman and Stewart cases, rather than w

1949In the case of Zittel v. Meyer, 107 Wash. 585 , 182 Pac. 585 , in affirming a judgment in favor of two of three joint purchasers of land against the third purchaser, this court said: “In Stewart v. Preston, 77 Wash. 559 , 137 Pac. 993 , we committed ourselves to the salutary rule that the fraud of an agent who was orally employed to purchase real estate for his principal may not be avoided by the plea that his agency was not evidenced in writing.” *188 The facts disclosed by the record in the case at bar bring this case within the rule laid down in the Merriman and Stewart cases, rather than w

1920In speaking upon the merits of. the case, the court said: servance of this salutary rule.’ See, also, Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch, 87, 128 ; Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518, 625 ; Livingston v. Darlington, 101 U. S. 407 . by means of the suffrage.’ Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 370 .

1915Sinking-Fund Cases, 99 U. S. 700 ; Livingston v. Darlington, 101 U. S. 407 ; Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S. 678 ; State v. Carey, 4 Wash. 424 , 30 Pac. 729 .

1919Respondent cites a number of cases from this and other courts in support of the rule stated in Dutton v. Willner, 52 N. Y. 312 , quoted in Neis v. Farquharson, 9 Wash. 508, 37 Pac. 697 , as follows: “It is a well settled and salutary rule that ‘a person who undertakes to act for another in any matter shall not, in the same matter, act for himself.’ ” The rule is universal, but assumes the existence of a relation different from that shown to have existed between these parties.

1894The rule is well stated in Dutton v. Willner, 52 N. Y. 312 , in which case the court said: “ It is a well settled and salutary rule that ‘ a person who undertakes to act for another in any matter shall not, in the same matter, act for himself. ’ ...

1989DOLLIVER, J. (dissenting) The majority overturns a unanimous ruling of the Disciplinary Board that Mr. Felice only be censured by adding to the sanction of censure a 30-day suspension from the practice of law. *529 In In re Noble, 100 Wn.2d 88, 95 , 667 P.2d 608 (1983), we stated: "[W]e will adopt the sanction recommended by the Disciplinary Board unless we are able to articulate specific reasons for adopting a different sanction." Although not cited, this salutary rule, until now the law, which gives both credence and deference to the Disciplinary Board, is ignored and surely overruled sub si

1989DOLLIVER, J. (dissenting) The majority overturns a unanimous ruling of the Disciplinary Board that Mr. Felice only be censured by adding to the sanction of censure a 30-day suspension from the practice of law. *529 In In re Noble, 100 Wn.2d 88, 95 , 667 P.2d 608 (1983), we stated: "[W]e will adopt the sanction recommended by the Disciplinary Board unless we are able to articulate specific reasons for adopting a different sanction." Although not cited, this salutary rule, until now the law, which gives both credence and deference to the Disciplinary Board, is ignored and surely overruled sub si

1989DOLLIVER, J. (dissenting) The majority overturns a unanimous ruling of the Disciplinary Board that Mr. Felice only be censured by adding to the sanction of censure a 30-day suspension from the practice of law. *529 In In re Noble, 100 Wn.2d 88, 95 , 667 P.2d 608 (1983), we stated: "[W]e will adopt the sanction recommended by the Disciplinary Board unless we are able to articulate specific reasons for adopting a different sanction." Although not cited, this salutary rule, until now the law, which gives both credence and deference to the Disciplinary Board, is ignored and surely overruled sub si

1989DOLLIVER, J. (dissenting) The majority overturns a unanimous ruling of the Disciplinary Board that Mr. Felice only be censured by adding to the sanction of censure a 30-day suspension from the practice of law. *529 In In re Noble, 100 Wn.2d 88, 95 , 667 P.2d 608 (1983), we stated: "[W]e will adopt the sanction recommended by the Disciplinary Board unless we are able to articulate specific reasons for adopting a different sanction." Although not cited, this salutary rule, until now the law, which gives both credence and deference to the Disciplinary Board, is ignored and surely overruled sub si

1978In addition, the Uniform Commercial Code, RCW 62A.2-201 (3) (b), recognizes that an oral contract for the sale of goods even though in excess of the $500 limit imposed, is enforceable if "the party against whom enforcement is sought admits in his pleadings, testimony or otherwise in court that a contract for sale was made ..." See Dehahn v. Innes, 356 A.2d 711 (Me. 1976) (holding that the salutary principle embodied in RCW 62A.2-201(3)(b) is applicable to a contract for the sale of goods alone but also should apply equally to the instant contract involving both goods and real estate).

1977Nonetheless, since Derheim v. N. Fiorito Co., 80 Wn.2d 161 , 492 P.2d 1030 (1972), the more salutary rule does not appear to be the law of the state.

1977Nonetheless, since Derheim v. N. Fiorito Co., 80 Wn.2d 161 , 492 P.2d 1030 (1972), the more salutary rule does not appear to be the law of the state.

1976Likewise, in Dowell v. Department of Labor & Indus., 51 Wn.2d 428,434 , 319 P.2d 843 (1957), the court stated: The question of the extent of partial disability is ultimately for the jury as the trier of fact.

1976Likewise, in Dowell v. Department of Labor & Indus., 51 Wn.2d 428,434 , 319 P.2d 843 (1957), the court stated: The question of the extent of partial disability is ultimately for the jury as the trier of fact.

1967Smith v. American Mail Line, Ltd., 58 Wn.2d 361 , 363 P.2d 133 (1961) — a salutary principle contributing greatly to the finality of judgments and stability of the courts.

1967Smith v. American Mail Line, Ltd., 58 Wn.2d 361 , 363 P.2d 133 (1961) — a salutary principle contributing greatly to the finality of judgments and stability of the courts.

1949In the case of Zittel v. Meyer, 107 Wash. 585 , 182 Pac. 585 , in affirming a judgment in favor of two of three joint purchasers of land against the third purchaser, this court said: “In Stewart v. Preston, 77 Wash. 559 , 137 Pac. 993 , we committed ourselves to the salutary rule that the fraud of an agent who was orally employed to purchase real estate for his principal may not be avoided by the plea that his agency was not evidenced in writing.” *188 The facts disclosed by the record in the case at bar bring this case within the rule laid down in the Merriman and Stewart cases, rather than w

1949In the case of Zittel v. Meyer, 107 Wash. 585 , 182 Pac. 585 , in affirming a judgment in favor of two of three joint purchasers of land against the third purchaser, this court said: “In Stewart v. Preston, 77 Wash. 559 , 137 Pac. 993 , we committed ourselves to the salutary rule that the fraud of an agent who was orally employed to purchase real estate for his principal may not be avoided by the plea that his agency was not evidenced in writing.” *188 The facts disclosed by the record in the case at bar bring this case within the rule laid down in the Merriman and Stewart cases, rather than w

1945In Campbell v. Department of Labor & Industries, 21 Wn. (2d) 553, 152 P. (2d) 312 , we held an interrogatory “to what extent, if any, has the plaintiff sustained a permanent partial disability to his leg?” was sufficiently specific.

1942The opinion of this court in the case of Lockhart v. Lockhart, 145 Wash. 210 , 259 Pac. 385 , in my opinion, lays down a salutary principle of law, applicable to the case at bar.

1942The opinion of this court in the case of Lockhart v. Lockhart, 145 Wash. 210 , 259 Pac. 385 , in my opinion, lays down a salutary principle of law, applicable to the case at bar.

1941Appellants in Rust v. Schlaitzer, supra, insisted, as does appellant in the case at bar, that Randall v. Gerrick, 93 Wash. 522 , 161 P. (2d) 357 , L.

1931J. (dissenting) — In my opinion, the majority has misconstrued the effect of Atwood v. McKenzie-Waterhouse Co., 120 Wash. 214 , 206 Pac. 978 , and has wholly misapplied the salutary rule there laid down.

1931J. (dissenting) — In my opinion, the majority has misconstrued the effect of Atwood v. McKenzie-Waterhouse Co., 120 Wash. 214 , 206 Pac. 978 , and has wholly misapplied the salutary rule there laid down.

1931Their devotion to duty is not measured, like the prowess of the savage, by the number of their victims.’ *290 “See, also, the following: Snider v. Washington Water Power Co., 66 Wash. 598 , 120 Pac. 88 ; Rogers v. Kangley Timber Co., 74 Wash. 48 , 132 Pac. 731 ; State v. Arnold, 130 Wash. 370 , 227 Pac. 505 ; State v. Bozovich, 145 Wash. 227 , 259 Pac. 395 ; and State v. Heaton, 149 Wash. 452 , 271 Pac. 89 .” In civil cases, we have long since adopted the salutary rule that improper conduct on the part of counsel calculated to prejudice the minds of the jury is ground for granting a new trial.

1931Their devotion to duty is not measured, like the prowess of the savage, by the number of their victims.’ *290 “See, also, the following: Snider v. Washington Water Power Co., 66 Wash. 598 , 120 Pac. 88 ; Rogers v. Kangley Timber Co., 74 Wash. 48 , 132 Pac. 731 ; State v. Arnold, 130 Wash. 370 , 227 Pac. 505 ; State v. Bozovich, 145 Wash. 227 , 259 Pac. 395 ; and State v. Heaton, 149 Wash. 452 , 271 Pac. 89 .” In civil cases, we have long since adopted the salutary rule that improper conduct on the part of counsel calculated to prejudice the minds of the jury is ground for granting a new trial.

1931Their devotion to duty is not measured, like the prowess of the savage, by the number of their victims.’ *290 “See, also, the following: Snider v. Washington Water Power Co., 66 Wash. 598 , 120 Pac. 88 ; Rogers v. Kangley Timber Co., 74 Wash. 48 , 132 Pac. 731 ; State v. Arnold, 130 Wash. 370 , 227 Pac. 505 ; State v. Bozovich, 145 Wash. 227 , 259 Pac. 395 ; and State v. Heaton, 149 Wash. 452 , 271 Pac. 89 .” In civil cases, we have long since adopted the salutary rule that improper conduct on the part of counsel calculated to prejudice the minds of the jury is ground for granting a new trial.

1931Their devotion to duty is not measured, like the prowess of the savage, by the number of their victims.’ *290 “See, also, the following: Snider v. Washington Water Power Co., 66 Wash. 598 , 120 Pac. 88 ; Rogers v. Kangley Timber Co., 74 Wash. 48 , 132 Pac. 731 ; State v. Arnold, 130 Wash. 370 , 227 Pac. 505 ; State v. Bozovich, 145 Wash. 227 , 259 Pac. 395 ; and State v. Heaton, 149 Wash. 452 , 271 Pac. 89 .” In civil cases, we have long since adopted the salutary rule that improper conduct on the part of counsel calculated to prejudice the minds of the jury is ground for granting a new trial.

1931Their devotion to duty is not measured, like the prowess of the savage, by the number of their victims.’ *290 “See, also, the following: Snider v. Washington Water Power Co., 66 Wash. 598 , 120 Pac. 88 ; Rogers v. Kangley Timber Co., 74 Wash. 48 , 132 Pac. 731 ; State v. Arnold, 130 Wash. 370 , 227 Pac. 505 ; State v. Bozovich, 145 Wash. 227 , 259 Pac. 395 ; and State v. Heaton, 149 Wash. 452 , 271 Pac. 89 .” In civil cases, we have long since adopted the salutary rule that improper conduct on the part of counsel calculated to prejudice the minds of the jury is ground for granting a new trial.

1931Their devotion to duty is not measured, like the prowess of the savage, by the number of their victims.’ *290 “See, also, the following: Snider v. Washington Water Power Co., 66 Wash. 598 , 120 Pac. 88 ; Rogers v. Kangley Timber Co., 74 Wash. 48 , 132 Pac. 731 ; State v. Arnold, 130 Wash. 370 , 227 Pac. 505 ; State v. Bozovich, 145 Wash. 227 , 259 Pac. 395 ; and State v. Heaton, 149 Wash. 452 , 271 Pac. 89 .” In civil cases, we have long since adopted the salutary rule that improper conduct on the part of counsel calculated to prejudice the minds of the jury is ground for granting a new trial.

1931Their devotion to duty is not measured, like the prowess of the savage, by the number of their victims.’ *290 “See, also, the following: Snider v. Washington Water Power Co., 66 Wash. 598 , 120 Pac. 88 ; Rogers v. Kangley Timber Co., 74 Wash. 48 , 132 Pac. 731 ; State v. Arnold, 130 Wash. 370 , 227 Pac. 505 ; State v. Bozovich, 145 Wash. 227 , 259 Pac. 395 ; and State v. Heaton, 149 Wash. 452 , 271 Pac. 89 .” In civil cases, we have long since adopted the salutary rule that improper conduct on the part of counsel calculated to prejudice the minds of the jury is ground for granting a new trial.

1931Their devotion to duty is not measured, like the prowess of the savage, by the number of their victims.’ *290 “See, also, the following: Snider v. Washington Water Power Co., 66 Wash. 598 , 120 Pac. 88 ; Rogers v. Kangley Timber Co., 74 Wash. 48 , 132 Pac. 731 ; State v. Arnold, 130 Wash. 370 , 227 Pac. 505 ; State v. Bozovich, 145 Wash. 227 , 259 Pac. 395 ; and State v. Heaton, 149 Wash. 452 , 271 Pac. 89 .” In civil cases, we have long since adopted the salutary rule that improper conduct on the part of counsel calculated to prejudice the minds of the jury is ground for granting a new trial.

1931Their devotion to duty is not measured, like the prowess of the savage, by the number of their victims.’ *290 “See, also, the following: Snider v. Washington Water Power Co., 66 Wash. 598 , 120 Pac. 88 ; Rogers v. Kangley Timber Co., 74 Wash. 48 , 132 Pac. 731 ; State v. Arnold, 130 Wash. 370 , 227 Pac. 505 ; State v. Bozovich, 145 Wash. 227 , 259 Pac. 395 ; and State v. Heaton, 149 Wash. 452 , 271 Pac. 89 .” In civil cases, we have long since adopted the salutary rule that improper conduct on the part of counsel calculated to prejudice the minds of the jury is ground for granting a new trial.

1931Their devotion to duty is not measured, like the prowess of the savage, by the number of their victims.’ *290 “See, also, the following: Snider v. Washington Water Power Co., 66 Wash. 598 , 120 Pac. 88 ; Rogers v. Kangley Timber Co., 74 Wash. 48 , 132 Pac. 731 ; State v. Arnold, 130 Wash. 370 , 227 Pac. 505 ; State v. Bozovich, 145 Wash. 227 , 259 Pac. 395 ; and State v. Heaton, 149 Wash. 452 , 271 Pac. 89 .” In civil cases, we have long since adopted the salutary rule that improper conduct on the part of counsel calculated to prejudice the minds of the jury is ground for granting a new trial.

1922Co. v. Rand, 111 Wash. 557 , 191 Pac. 631 , and Sacajawea Lumber etc. Co. v. Skookum Lumber Co., 116 Wash. 75 , 198 Pac. 1112 , which lay down the salutary rule that a trustee of a corporation has no power to vote upon a question in which his individual interest is opposed to that of the corporation, perhaps states a cause of action, and, if so, a cause of action which is common to all stockholders of the corporation, and one for which, under Rem.

1922Co. v. Rand, 111 Wash. 557 , 191 Pac. 631 , and Sacajawea Lumber etc. Co. v. Skookum Lumber Co., 116 Wash. 75 , 198 Pac. 1112 , which lay down the salutary rule that a trustee of a corporation has no power to vote upon a question in which his individual interest is opposed to that of the corporation, perhaps states a cause of action, and, if so, a cause of action which is common to all stockholders of the corporation, and one for which, under Rem.

1922Co. v. Rand, 111 Wash. 557 , 191 Pac. 631 , and Sacajawea Lumber etc. Co. v. Skookum Lumber Co., 116 Wash. 75 , 198 Pac. 1112 , which lay down the salutary rule that a trustee of a corporation has no power to vote upon a question in which his individual interest is opposed to that of the corporation, perhaps states a cause of action, and, if so, a cause of action which is common to all stockholders of the corporation, and one for which, under Rem.

1922Co. v. Rand, 111 Wash. 557 , 191 Pac. 631 , and Sacajawea Lumber etc. Co. v. Skookum Lumber Co., 116 Wash. 75 , 198 Pac. 1112 , which lay down the salutary rule that a trustee of a corporation has no power to vote upon a question in which his individual interest is opposed to that of the corporation, perhaps states a cause of action, and, if so, a cause of action which is common to all stockholders of the corporation, and one for which, under Rem.

1920In speaking upon the merits of. the case, the court said: servance of this salutary rule.’ See, also, Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch, 87, 128 ; Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518, 625 ; Livingston v. Darlington, 101 U. S. 407 . by means of the suffrage.’ Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 370 .

1919Supp. 378 ).” The same rule is also approved in Kangley v. Rogers, 85 Wash. 250 , 147 Pac. 898 ; and being satisfied that this is a salutary rule tending to promote justice, and that any departure therefrom would invite, the trial of cases on collateral issues, we now adhere to ■ our previous ruling.

1919Supp. 378 ).” The same rule is also approved in Kangley v. Rogers, 85 Wash. 250 , 147 Pac. 898 ; and being satisfied that this is a salutary rule tending to promote justice, and that any departure therefrom would invite, the trial of cases on collateral issues, we now adhere to ■ our previous ruling.

1919Respondent cites a number of cases from this and other courts in support of the rule stated in Dutton v. Willner, 52 N. Y. 312 , quoted in Neis v. Farquharson, 9 Wash. 508, 37 Pac. 697 , as follows: “It is a well settled and salutary rule that ‘a person who undertakes to act for another in any matter shall not, in the same matter, act for himself.’ ” The rule is universal, but assumes the existence of a relation different from that shown to have existed between these parties.

1919Respondent cites a number of cases from this and other courts in support of the rule stated in Dutton v. Willner, 52 N. Y. 312 , quoted in Neis v. Farquharson, 9 Wash. 508, 37 Pac. 697 , as follows: “It is a well settled and salutary rule that ‘a person who undertakes to act for another in any matter shall not, in the same matter, act for himself.’ ” The rule is universal, but assumes the existence of a relation different from that shown to have existed between these parties.

1915Sinking-Fund Cases, 99 U. S. 700 ; Livingston v. Darlington, 101 U. S. 407 ; Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S. 678 ; State v. Carey, 4 Wash. 424 , 30 Pac. 729 .

1915Sinking-Fund Cases, 99 U. S. 700 ; Livingston v. Darlington, 101 U. S. 407 ; Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S. 678 ; State v. Carey, 4 Wash. 424 , 30 Pac. 729 .

1915Sinking-Fund Cases, 99 U. S. 700 ; Livingston v. Darlington, 101 U. S. 407 ; Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S. 678 ; State v. Carey, 4 Wash. 424 , 30 Pac. 729 .

1915Sinking-Fund Cases, 99 U. S. 700 ; Livingston v. Darlington, 101 U. S. 407 ; Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S. 678 ; State v. Carey, 4 Wash. 424 , 30 Pac. 729 .

1899The statute of Minnesota makes perjury a cause for vacating a judgment, and in Stewart v. Duncan, 40 Minn. 410 ( 42 N. W. 89 ), the supreme court of that state observed, in reference to this law: “ This statute is in derogation of the well-established and salutary principle and policy of the common law, which forbids the retrial of issues once determined by a final judgment.” The same court, in Hass v. Billings, 42 Minn. 63 ( 43 N. W. 797 ), observes: “ Besides the reason that the act is in derogation of the common law, there is another reason for a strict construction, furnished by the conseq

1899The statute of Minnesota makes perjury a cause for vacating a judgment, and in Stewart v. Duncan, 40 Minn. 410 ( 42 N. W. 89 ), the supreme court of that state observed, in reference to this law: “ This statute is in derogation of the well-established and salutary principle and policy of the common law, which forbids the retrial of issues once determined by a final judgment.” The same court, in Hass v. Billings, 42 Minn. 63 ( 43 N. W. 797 ), observes: “ Besides the reason that the act is in derogation of the common law, there is another reason for a strict construction, furnished by the conseq