Ach v. Carter
| Decision Date | 02 May 1899 |
| Citation | 21 Wash. 140,57 P. 344 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | ACH v. CARTER et al. |
Appeal from superior court, Pierce county; J. A. Williamson, Judge.
Action by Julius Ach against Fred Carter and others for commission for selling merchandise. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
George W. Fogg, for appellants.
Sharpstein & Blattner, for respondent.
Appellants were co-partners under the name of the Tacoma Woolen Mills Company, and were engaged in the manufacture of Woolen merchandise. The complaint alleges that appellants entered into a written agreement with respondent on the 17th of September, 1897, by the terms of which appellants agreed to pay respondent 3 per cent. on all sales made in San Francisco, and for all goods sold, also to pay the same commission on all orders received direct from respondent's trade, and agreed to allow him 1 per cent extra on all bills which he might discount. Respondent agreed to represent the goods of appellants to the trade, and to discount such bills as he might desire at the rate of 1 per cent. Thereafter respondent made a sale of appellants' merchandise to a San Francisco firm in the amount of $15,590, and demanded his commission of 3 per cent thereon, amounting to $467.70, and judgment was demanded for that amount. Appellants' answer admitted the contract and the sale, and the ability and readiness of the San Francisco firm to pay, and, for a further defense, alleged the subsequent cancellation of the written agreement set out in the complaint, and the substitution of a parol agreement therefor, different from the written agreement only in the particular that appellants should send to respondent statements of accounts of sales made by him, and respondent would thereupon remit to appellants the amount of such statements, less a commission of 4 per cent. Appellants also admitted the sale of the merchandise by respondent to the San Francisco firm, and the ratification of the sale by appellants. A jury being waived, the evidence was heard by the court. At the conclusion of the trial, the court, in the form of an opinion, reviewed the evidence, and made its conclusion of facts, and also of law. Counsel for appellants then excepted to the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the opinion. The court afterwards filed the opinion, and ordered that it stand for the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the case. Motion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clopton v. Meeves
... ... If it ... be conceded that we ask for money due as brokers, then their ... answer amounts to a denial that they were brokers, and ... couples with such denial a statement to the effect that they ... were middlemen and had been paid in full. (Ach v ... Carter, 21 Wash. 140, 57 P. 344; McGrath v ... Gilmore, 15 Wash. 558, 46 P. 1032; Johnson v. Polhemus, ... 99 Cal. 240, 33 P. 908.) ... "The ... plain intention of our law is that when the parties are once ... in court, all conflicting claims shall be settled between ... them arising out ... ...
-
Anderson, In re
...that the court's findings were conclusions of law rather than findings of fact. No such question may be presented here. Ach v. Carter, 21 Wash. 140, 57 P. 344; Lauridsen v. Lewis, 50 Wash. 605, 97 P. In Montreal Mining Co. v. Industrial Commission, 225 Wis. 1, 272 N.W. 828, the court observ......
-
Bignold v. Carr
... ... second place, under the doctrine laid down in Olson v ... Veazie, 9 Wash. 481, 37 P. 677, an action upon a joint ... judgment may be maintained against one of the judgment ... debtors alone ... [24 ... Wash. 417] The appellant cites Ach v. Carter, 21 ... Wash. 140, 57 P. 344, in support of the assignment of error ... that the court erred in failing to sign the findings of fact ... and conclusions of law separately; but, whatever may be said ... of the merits of this contention, the case cited by appellant ... ...
-
Rattlemiller v. Stone
...4 of defendant's answer; said paragraph 4 being inconsistent with the description of the certificate in the complaint. Ach v. Carter, 21 Wash. 140, 57 P. 344. next assignment of error is based upon the giving of the eleventh instruction, which is as follows: 'If you find from the evidence t......