Jacobs v. Burke

3 Citing cases

  1. Zwick v. United Farm Agency, Inc.

    556 P.2d 508 (Wyo. 1976)   Cited 9 times

    12 Am.Jur.2d Brokers ยง 89, p. 842; Moore v. Turner, 137 W. Va. 299, 71 S.E.2d 342, 32 A.L.R.2d 713.McCallum v. Maxwell, 135 Cal.App. 580, 27 P.2d 925; Jacobs v. Burke, 168 Wn. 644, 13 P.2d 30; Haymes v. Rogers, 70 Ariz. 408, 222 P.2d 789, 17 A.L.R.2d 896; Realty Company of America v. Burton, 160 Cal.App.2d 178, 325 P.2d 171; Graber v. Tennant, 173 Kan. 577, 250 P.2d 816; and Westerbeck v. Cannon, 5 Wn.2d 106, 104 P.2d 918.Eastburn v. Joseph Espalla, Jr. Co., 215 Ala. 650, 112 So. 232, 53 A.L.R. 134; Kurtz v. Farrington, 104 Conn. 257, 132 A. 540, 48 A.L.R. 259; Berenson v. Nirenstein, 326 Mass. 285, 93 N.E.2d 610, 20 A.L.R.2d 1136; Schepers v. Lautenschlager, 173 Neb. 107, 112 N.W.2d 767; Sexton v. Kelly, 185 Or. 1, 200 P.2d 950; and Olson v. Brickles, 203 Va. 447, 124 S.E.2d 895.

  2. Hinckel v. Steigers

    191 P.2d 279 (Wash. 1948)   Cited 3 times

    The incompetent evidence was merely cumulative proof of facts otherwise established by competent evidence, hence the error is harmless. Peterson v. Tull, 85 Wn. 546, 148 P. 598; Askey v. New York Life Ins. Co., 102 Wn. 27, 172 P. 887, L.R.A. 1918F, 267; Jacobs v.Burke, 168 Wn. 644, 13 P.2d 30; Yakima First Nat. Bank v. Pettibone, 182 Wn. 663, 47 P.2d 997. Immediately after the stenographer was on the stand, the investigator who accompanied him to the home of appellant, testified on behalf of respondents.

  3. Proff v. Maley

    14 Wn. 2d 287 (Wash. 1942)   Cited 9 times
    In Proff v. Maley, 14 Wn.2d 287, 128 P.2d 330 (decided July 20, 1942), we held that a respondent who takes no cross-appeal cannot be heard to claim a more favorable judgment in this court.

    Glenn v. Hill, 11 Wn. 541, 40 P. 141; Augerson v. Seattle Electric Co., 73 Wn. 529, 132 P. 222; Boothe v. Bassett, 82 Wn. 95, 143 P. 449; Jacobs v. Burke, 168 Wn. 644, 13 P.2d 30. Appellant contends: (1) That he is entitled to contribution on the basis of the total amount paid on the individual notes and the joint notes; (2) that, in any event, computing Maley's liability for contribution on the basis of what was paid on the joint notes only, he is entitled to recover a much larger sum than $480; and (3) that he is entitled to have judgment run against the Maley community.