Hanley v. Most, 28159.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
| Writing for the Court | [9 Wn.2d 483] PER CURIAM. |
| Citation | 118 P.2d 946,9 Wn.2d 474 |
| Parties | HANLEY v. MOST et al. |
| Docket Number | 28159. |
| Decision Date | 29 September 1941 |
118 P.2d 946
9 Wn.2d 474
HANLEY
v.
MOST et al.
No. 28159.
Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.
September 29, 1941
On petition for rehearing.
Opinion clarified and adhered to.
For former opinion, see 115 P.2d 951.
[9 Wn.2d 476] Preston, Thorgrimson, Turner, Horowitz & Stephan and Colvin, Rhodes & Franklin, all of Seattle, for petitioner.
Padden & Moriarty and E. B. Hanley, Jr., all of Seattle, for E. B. Hanley Sr.
McMicken, Rupp & Schweppe, J. Gordon Gose, and J. Speed Smith, all of Seattle, for Most et al.,
[9 Wn.2d 483] PER CURIAM.
After the opinion on the contempt matter in this case was filed, 115 P.2d 951, Elizabeth H. Hanley filed a petition in which she asked to have the opinion clarified in one respect and modified in another. To this petition an answer was called for. E. B. Hanley, Sr., in his answer, supported the petition of Mrs. Hanley. Joe E. Most answered, and stated that the opinion was clear, and that he saw no reason for 'attempting to clarify that which is already clear.' We think the opinion, as written, is clear, but to avoid any controversy over the matter in the future, we will attempt to clarify it.
[9 Wn.2d 484] Mrs. Hanley may bring any kind of an action that she sees fit, and it was not the intention of the opinion to limit the scope of that inquiry. Mr. Hanley may bring any kind of an action that he sees fit, and it was not the intention of the opinion to limit the scope of that inquiry. Likewise, Mr. and Mrs. Hanley may join in bringing any action that they see fit, and it was not the intention of the opinion to limit the scope of the inquiry. Primarily, the scope of the inquiry in any action that may be brought is for the superior court in the first instance.
What has been said herein is limited to the opinion in the contempt proceeding and does not in any way bear upon, or have any reference to, the opinion on the merits. 115 P.2d 933.
In all other respects, the opinion will be adhered to.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stafford v. Field, No. 7585
...be added to, changed, altered or impeached. Campbell v. Nunn, 78 Utah 316, 2 P.2d 899; Hanley v. Most, 9 Wash.2d 474, 115 P.2d 951 at 952, 118 P.2d 946; Bryer v. American Surety Co. of New York, 285 Mass. 336, 189 N.E. 109; State ex rel. Gregory v. Henderson, 230 Mo.App. 1, 88 S.W.2d 893; C......
-
Mortimer v. Pacific States Sav. & Loan Co., 3395.
...supersede the minute order entered by the clerk. State v. Bell, 34 Wash. 185, 75 P. 641; Hanley v. Most, 9 Wash.2d 429, 115 P.2d 951, 118 P.2d 946; [145 P.2d 736] Gould v. Austin, 52 Wash. 457, 100 P. 1029, 1030. In the above case the court said: "The rule in this state is that, where ......
-
Signal Oil & Gas Co. v. Ashland Oil & Refining Co.
...invalid the actions taken at the December 16 meeting. Appellants, in reliance upon Hanley v. Most (1941), 9 Wash.2d 474, 115 P.2d 951, 118 P.2d 946, and Deeds v. Gilmer (1934), 162 Va. 157, 174 S.E. 37, 79, urge that the actions taken at the December 16 directors' meeting were not invalid, ......
-
Smith v. Smith, No. 34891
...652, 89 P. 166; City Bank Farmers Trust Co. v. McGowan, D.C.1942, 43 F.Supp. 790. See Hanley v. Most, 1941, 9 Wash.2d 474, 115 P.2d 951, 118 P.2d 946; 1 Freeman on Judgments (5th ed.) 132, § Applying the settled law of this state to the facts presented Page 8 by this appeal, extrinsic evide......
-
Stafford v. Field, No. 7585
...be added to, changed, altered or impeached. Campbell v. Nunn, 78 Utah 316, 2 P.2d 899; Hanley v. Most, 9 Wash.2d 474, 115 P.2d 951 at 952, 118 P.2d 946; Bryer v. American Surety Co. of New York, 285 Mass. 336, 189 N.E. 109; State ex rel. Gregory v. Henderson, 230 Mo.App. 1, 88 S.W.2d 893; C......
-
Mortimer v. Pacific States Sav. & Loan Co., 3395.
...supersede the minute order entered by the clerk. State v. Bell, 34 Wash. 185, 75 P. 641; Hanley v. Most, 9 Wash.2d 429, 115 P.2d 951, 118 P.2d 946; [145 P.2d 736] Gould v. Austin, 52 Wash. 457, 100 P. 1029, 1030. In the above case the court said: "The rule in this state is that, where ......
-
Signal Oil & Gas Co. v. Ashland Oil & Refining Co.
...invalid the actions taken at the December 16 meeting. Appellants, in reliance upon Hanley v. Most (1941), 9 Wash.2d 474, 115 P.2d 951, 118 P.2d 946, and Deeds v. Gilmer (1934), 162 Va. 157, 174 S.E. 37, 79, urge that the actions taken at the December 16 directors' meeting were not invalid, ......
-
Smith v. Smith, No. 34891
...652, 89 P. 166; City Bank Farmers Trust Co. v. McGowan, D.C.1942, 43 F.Supp. 790. See Hanley v. Most, 1941, 9 Wash.2d 474, 115 P.2d 951, 118 P.2d 946; 1 Freeman on Judgments (5th ed.) 132, § Applying the settled law of this state to the facts presented Page 8 by this appeal, extrinsic evide......