Acme Finance Co. v. Zapffe

• Decision Date: 16 March 1931
• Docket Number: 22985.
• Citation: 296 P. 1050,161 Wash. 312
• Parties: ACME FINANCE CO. v. ZAPFFE et ux.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

296 P. 1050

161 Wash. 312

ACME FINANCE CO. v. ZAPFFE et ux.

No. 22985.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 16, 1931

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; H. A. P. Myers, Judge.

Action by the Acme Finance Company against Carl Zapffe and wife. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

Van Dyke & Thomas, of Seattle, for appellants.

Kerr &amp McCord, S. N. Greenleaf (A. C.), Bogle, Bogle & Gates, Ray Dumett, and Stanley B. Long, all of Seattle, for respondent.

PARKER, J.

The plaintiff, finance company, seeks recovery from the defendant Zapffe and the marital community consisting of himself and wife upon a negotiable promissory note executed and delivered by him to one Greenwell, and by Greenwell sold and transferred, by indorsement, to the finance company before maturity. The case proceeded to trial in the superior court for King county sitting with a jury, but during the trial the jury was, by consent of counsel on both sides, discharged and the case submitted to the court for final decision as a nonjury case. The trial resulted in findings and judgment awarding to the finance company recovery against Zapffe and the community for the full amount of the note with interest, from which judgment Zapffe and wife have appealed to this court, contending here principally that the note does not constitute a community obligation.

There is but little room for dispute as to the controlling facts as we view this case. On September 10, 1929, Zapffe executed and delivered to Greenwell the note here sued upon evidencing an indebtedness in the principal sum of $250 payable ninety days after date, with 6 per cent. interest. At the same time Greenwell executed and delivered to Zapffe a note of the same import as to amount of principal, date of maturity, and rate of interest. Both notes were negotiable, and each evidenced an obligation in all respects equal to the other. On September 11, 1929, Greenwell sold the note here sued upon to the finance company, evidencing such sale by delivery and by appropriate endorsement. The finance company paid Greenwell $220 cash for that note. Thereafter Zapffe duly transferred the note received by him from Greenwell to one Semmes. Whether or not this transfer was merely for the purpose of collection and suit as between Zapffe and Semmes we need not here inquire. The transfer at all events resulted in passing the legal title to that note from Zapffe to Semmes. Thereafter on November 13, 1929, Semmes commenced in the superior court an action against Greenwell seeking recovery upon that note. The commencement of that action before maturity of the note was to have attachment and garnishment process issued against property of Greenwell, as the law authorizes by suit upon an obligation prior to maturity. §§ 649, 680, Rem. Comp. Stat.

Did the giving of the note to Zapffe by Greenwell create a community obligation of Zapffe and wife? It has become our settled law that a promissory note executed by the husband alone presumptively evidences a community obligation of himself and wife. Reed v. Loney, 22 Wash. 433, 61 P. 41; Way v. Lyric Theater Co., 79 Wash. 275, 140 P. 320; Denis v. Metzenbaum, 124 Wash. 86, 213 P. 453. We have here not only this presumption supporting recovery upon the note sued upon, but also the fact that that note was given in consideration of Greenwell's giving to Zapffe a note of the same negotiable character and of the same amount, date of maturity, and interest. Clearly, that note then became the property of the community consisting of Zapffe and wife, since it was thereby acquired by the community, and not by Zapffe by gift, bequest, or descent. Sections 6890-6892, Rem. Comp. Stat.

We think there is hardly room for serious contention that the note given by Greenwell to Zapffe did not...