Volume 120 — Washington Reports

<p>Banks and Banking (26)—Deposits—Special Deposits—Liability. A deposit in a hank is a special one, where it was made for the purpose of applying on the payment of an outstanding note when it should be presented, and it was so noted in writing at the time by the bank, and the amount withdrawn from the depositor’s account and held for the holder of the note, whose whereabouts was unknown.</p>

<p>Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Yakima county, Smith, J., entered July 16, 1921, upon the verdict of a jury rendered in favor of the plaintiff, in an action on contract.</p>

, entered June 6, 1921, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, in an action to recover a broker’s commissions, tried to the court.

, entered July 14, 1921, in favor of the plaintiff, notwithstanding the verdict of a jury rendered in favor of the defendant, in an action on a promissory note.

<p>Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Spokane county, Webster, J., entered December 20, 1920, upon findings in favor of the plaintiffs, in an action to quiet title, tried to the court.</p>

<p>Nuisances (2)—What Constitutes—Undertaking Establishment—Authority to Maintain—Effect of City Ordinance. An undertaking establishment, within the district permitted, and thus authorized, by a city ordinance passed in the exercise of the police power, is not a nuisance, within Rem. Comp. Stat., § 9914, defining a nuisance as the doing of an “unlawful” act, where the ordinance was not unreasonable.</p>

<p>Ceetiobabi (6)—When Lies—Adequacy oe Remedy by Appeal. Certiorari lies to review a judgment dismissing an action to enjoin the enforcement of an ordinance, where the relator would he subject to criminal prosecutions and prevented from continuing his business and would suffer considerable property loss during the pendency of an appeal, for which he could not recover.</p> <p>Constitutional Law (114)—Privileges and Immunities—Due Process—Licenses—Revocation—Prohibition of Business. Const., Art. 1, §§1 and 3, and the fourteenth amendment of the Federal constitution, are not violated by a city ordinance providing for the licensing and regulation of pool and billiard halls, although no provision is made for hearing; and the refusal to grant a license upon the facts of a given case, passed upon by the city authorities, is not reviewable in the courts; in view of the harmful nature and tendency “often” attendant upon the operation of such places, and the necessity of restrictions in the effort to maintain good government.</p>

<p>Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Whitman county, Miller, J., entered April 21, 1921, in favor of the defendants, in a will contest, tried to the court.</p>

<p>Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Davidson, J., entered May 27, 1921, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, in an action to establish the location of a meander corner, tried to the court.</p>

<p>Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Okanogan county, Neal, J., entered May 28, 1921, in favor of the defendant, in an action to enjoin the destruction of a building within the fire limits of a town after partial destruction by fire.</p>

<p>Appeal (218)—Notice—Parties—Sureties on Cost Bond. A surety on appellant’s cost bond below, who had no right to appeal from the judgment for costs entered against it, is not a necessary party to the appeal upon whom notice-must be served.</p> <p>Sales (8, 22)—Requisites of Contract—Evidence—Sufficiency. There was a sale of drydock machinery by the manufacturer to defendant, a broker or dealer, ordered- for another, where the initial order designated it as the order of the defendant, the subsequent correspondence showed that defendant considered itself the purchaser, and nothing to the contrary was claimed until its purchaser became badly involved and possibly would not take the goods.</p> <p>Sales (88)—Operation and Effect—Delivery by or Through Carrier. Where machinery was shipped to shipper’s order and bill of lading with draft attached sent to the buyer, the title passed when the goods were delivered to the carrier by the shipper, subject to the shipper’s rights under the law generally.</p>

<p>Corporations (167, 174)—Representation by Officers—Contracts op Employment—Ratification. A partnership’s employment of an attorney for one year is ratified by a corporation, formed a few months later, where the attorney continued to act for the corporation during the balance of the period.</p> <p>Same (167)-—Contracts—Ratification —■ Evidence — Admissibility. In an action for attorney’s fees, against a corporation which had ratified his employment by a partnership prior to incorporation of the company, it is admissible to show that a branch office of defendant had advised with the attorney on matters pertaining to the corporation after it had taken over the business of the partnership.</p>

<p>Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Hall, J., entered August 11, 1921, upon findings in favor of the defendants, dismissing an action of replevin, tried to the court.</p>