American Sav. Bank & Trust Co. v. Mafridge
Decision Date | 20 September 1910 |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Parties | AMERICAN SAVINGS BANK & TRUST CO. v. MAFRIDGE. |
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; C. H. Neal, Judge.
Action by the American Savings Bank & Trust Company against Z. A Mafridge. From the judgment, both parties appeal. Reversed and remanded, with instructions.
Blaine, Tucker & Hyland and Robert C. Saunders for appellant.
Farrell Kane & Stratton, for respondent.
The American Savings Bank & Trust Company brought this action against Z. A. Mafridge, personally and as executor of the last will of Katherine Mafridge, deceased, to recover damages in the sum of $41,700 for breach of a contract, and to foreclose a deed given as security for the performance of that contract. Upon a trial of the case, the lower court found in favor of the plaintiff for $4,000, being payments due upon the contract for two months past due, and ordered the trust deed foreclosed for that amount, but denied further relief. Mafridge has appealed from that decree. The plaintiff, American Savings Bank & Trust Company, has also appealed, contending that the court erred in not finding for the plaintiff in a larger amount. The parties will therefore, be designated herein as 'plaintiff' and 'defendant.'
There is no dispute upon the facts in the case, which are, in brief, as follows: In October, 1908, one Harry Welty was the owner by assignment of a lease upon certain premises in the city of Seattle. This lease by its terms was to run until August 1, 1916, at a monthly rental of $1,575 per month for the first five years. On October 12, 1908, Mr. Welty and Mr. Mafridge entered into the following agreement in writing: [
On October 28, 1908, Mr. Mafridge, in order to secure the specific performance of this contract, executed and delivered a deed absolute in form conveying to the plaintiff the property now sought to be held as security for the damages sustained. At the time the contract above set out was entered into, the defendant, Mafridge, took possession of the leased property and occupied the same, by himself or the Boston store, a corporation formed by him, which latter corporation subsequently went into the hands of a receiver, who paid the rent while he occupied the premises as such receiver until the 1st day of May, 1909. The rent for May and June, 1909 was not paid. After the receiver was appointed, the defendant, Mafridge, requested the plaintiff to dispose of the lease to the best advantage. The plaintiff thereupon sold the lease to the original lessor, for a consideration of $10,000. It is contended by the defendant upon this appeal: (1) That the contract above set out was not a valid one, because it is an agreement to lease the property for a term of years and is not acknowledged; (2) that the contract is not a mutual, enforceable contract; and (3) that the plaintiff is not liable for any rent under the evidence. The trial court was apparently of the opinion that the contract above set out was not valid as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Meltzer v. Wendell-West, WENDELL-WEST
...right to receive rental payments: Anderson v. National Bank of Tacoma, 146 Wash. 520, 264 P. 8 (1928); American Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Mafridge, 60 Wash. 180, 110 P. 1015 (1910); Tibbals v. Iffland, 10 Wash. 451, 39 P. 102 (1895). 4. The relinquishment or forfeiture of the community in......
-
Groth v. Continental Oil Co.
...E. Doherty, Inc., 106 Wash. 561, 181 P. 16; Holden v. Tidwell, 37 Okl. 553, 133 P. 54, 49 L.R.A.,N.S., 369; American Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Mafridge, 60 Wash. 180, 110 P. 1015; Weander v. Claussen Brewing Ass'n, 42 Wash. 226, 84 P. 735; New Amsterdam Cas. Co. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. C......
-
Fry v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 3689.
...to convey to the son and daughter * * * all of his interest in the * * * farm properties.‘ Citing American Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Mafridge, 60 Wash. 180; 110 Pac. 1015, and Nelson v. Goodrich, 159 Wash. 189; 292 Pac. 406, he contends that a writing was not even necessary, inasmuch as h......
-
Andrews v. Cusin
...property. In re Barclay's Estate, 1 Wash.2d 82, 95 P.2d 393; Taylor v. Basye, 119 Wash. 263, 205 P. 16; American Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Mafridge, 60 Wash. 180, 110 P. 1015. It is defined, for purposes of taxation, as personal property, in RCW 84.04.080, and excluded from the definition......