Achey v. Creech
Cases that cite this one
23 later published cases cite this decision.
- Stewart v. Maybury (Wash. 1931)
- Heaney v. BD. OF TRUSTEES OF GARDEN VAL., ETC. (Idaho 1978)
- James W. Glover, Ltd. v. Fong (Haw. 1954)
- State Ex Rel. Golden Valley County v. District Court (Mont. 1925)
- Norco Construction, Inc., a Washington Corporation v. King County, a Municipal Corporation (9th Cir. 1986)
- Braine v. City of Stroud (Okla. 1963)
- Witte v. Old Nat. Bank of Spokane (Wash. 1948)
- Golden v. McGill (Wash. 1940)
- State Ex. Rel. Dept. F.B. B. v. Thurston Co. (Wash. 1939)
- State ex rel. Department of Finance, Budget & Business v. Thurston County (Wash. 1939)
- Large v. Shively (Wash. 1938)
- Currier v. Perry (Wash. 1935)
- Howell v. Hunters Exchange State Bank (Wash. 1928)
- State Ex Rel. White Pine Sash Co. v. Superior Court (Wash. 1927)
- White v. Miley (Wash. 1926)
- Seattle, R. & S. Ry. Co. v. City of Seattle (District Court, W.D. Washington 1914)
- Longfellow v. City of Seattle (Wash. 1913)
- Bailey v. Edwards (Mont. 1913)
- State v. Middle Kittitas Irrigation District (Wash. 1910)
- State ex rel. Brown v. McQuade (Wash. 1905)
- In re Higdon (Wash. 1948)
- Rowe v. Silbaugh (Wash. 1917)
- State ex rel. Lewis v. Hodge (Wash. 1916)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
This is an action brought by the respondent against the appellant, sheriff of Chehalis county, for damages alleged to have been sustained by respondent by the alleged unlawful detention of certain property of respondent, claimed to be exempt from execution, which property was levied upon by the sheriff in an attachment suit brought against the respondent by one 1ST. Gf. Kaufman. At the time of the levy aforesaid, the respondent brought a suit in mandamus against the sheriff, the appellant in this action. In that suit the property was adjudged exempt property, and the sheriff was ordered to turn the same over to the respondent, which was done.
In uhis ease the appellant moved against the complaint, asking that respondent be required to state her causes of action separately, and to strike certain portions thereof, which motion was denied by the court. Appellant also demurred to the complaint, which demurrer was overruled by the court. An answer was interposed, the affirmative part of which- was stricken out on motion of the respondent, and which it is not necessary to discuss here. The case went to trial and judgment was rendered in favor of the respondent. The demurrer should have been sus
The judgment will be reversed and remanded, with instructions to sustain the demurrer to the complaint.
G-obdon, C. J., and Fullerton, Anders and Beavis, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.