275 P. 81 THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, on the Relation of Leo Baisden, Appellant, v. JOSEPHINE CORLISS PRESTON, et al., Respondents. No. 21727. Department Two.The Supreme Court of Washington. March 11, 1929. [1] STATUTES (58, 59) — CONSTRUCTION — MEANING OF LANGUAGE — AMBIGUITY. While statutes should be construed to give meaning, if possible, to […]
Articles Tagged: 275 P. 81
STATE EX REL. BAISDEN v. PRESTON, 151 Wn. 175 (1929)
275 P. 81 THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, on the Relation of Leo Baisden, Appellant, v. JOSEPHINE CORLISS PRESTON, et al., Respondents. No. 21727. Department Two.The Supreme Court of Washington. March 11, 1929. [1] STATUTES (58, 59) — CONSTRUCTION — MEANING OF LANGUAGE — AMBIGUITY. While statutes should be construed to give meaning, if possible, to […]
STATE EX REL. BAISDEN v. PRESTON, 151 Wn. 175 (1929)
275 P. 81 THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, on the Relation of Leo Baisden, Appellant, v. JOSEPHINE CORLISS PRESTON, et al., Respondents. No. 21727. Department Two.The Supreme Court of Washington. March 11, 1929. [1] STATUTES (58, 59) — CONSTRUCTION — MEANING OF LANGUAGE — AMBIGUITY. While statutes should be construed to give meaning, if possible, to […]