Ault v. Interstate Sav. & Loan Ass'n
| Decision Date | 27 November 1896 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | AULT v. INTERSTATE SAVINGS & LOAN ASS'N. |
Appeal from superior court, Snohomish county; John C. Denney, Judge.
Action by John B. Ault against the Interstate Savings & Loan Association. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed.
Shank & Smith, for appellant.
Coleman & Hart, for respondent.
It was alleged in the complaint filed in this action that on the 26th day of August, 1895, an account was stated between the plaintiff and defendant, upon which statement a balance was found to be due from the defendant to the plaintiff of $1,873.25; that said defendant then and there agreed to pay the said sum; but that it had not paid the same, nor any part thereof. Defendant's answer denied that any account had been stated, or that it had agreed to pay the respondent, as alleged in his complaint, and further denied that defendant had agreed to pay the plaintiff any sum whatever which had not been paid. Such answer also set up certain counterclaims and asked for judgment thereon. The items of these counterclaims were admitted in the reply of the plaintiff but it was alleged that the amount thereof had been credited to the defendant in the stated account sued upon. Upon the issues made by these pleadings, a trial was had, and a verdict returned by the jury, in favor of the plaintiff, upon which, after a motion for a new trial had been made and denied, judgment was rendered for $1,959.90 in favor of the plaintiff, and against the defendant.
One of the errors alleged is that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the verdict. Plaintiff testified: That on August 26 1895, he made up an account against the defendant in substantially the following form:
Interstate Savings & Loan Ass'n, Minneapolis, Minn
To John B. Ault, Dr.
To services rendered between the years 1889 and 1895
................
$1,720 00
To Hudson & Sipprell and Stingley and Downs foreclosure
suits ....
195 00
To Gustav Sorenson foreclosure suit
.....................................
60 00
To Nelson Eddy foreclosure suit
.........................................
60 00
To draft C. B. Aldrich
.................................................
100 00
To interest on above draft
..............................................
50 00
To withdrawal value of Zwiefelhofer and Zelhi
certificate of stock, assigned over for a valuable
consideration .............
185 83
---------
$2,370 83
Credits.
By cash
................................................................
$85 00
By 1/2 M. D. Montgomery's due
-That in connection therewith he wrote a letter of transmittal, of which the following is a copy: He further testified: That, at the same time, he wrote an additional letter, of which the following is a copy: That he inclosed it with the account and the other letter, and mailed the package containing these inclosures to the defendant on said 26th day of August, 1895. This letter, in due course, should have reached the defendant about four days after it was mailed, and the testimony upon the part of the defendant showed that an envelope containing the account and letter first above set out was received at its office in Minneapolis. But it also showed that the second letter was never received by defendant. The testimony in behalf of the defendant further showed that, at the time this account and letter of transmittal were received, its president and general manager was out of the city for a few days, and that his presence was necessary before it could receive attention; that, for this reason, no action was taken upon the account rendered by the plaintiff until September 19th, at which time a letter was written by the general manager of the defendant to the plaintiff, of which the following is a copy: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Neuson v. Macy's Dep't Stores Inc.
...evidence). We conclude that she has met her burden. Gibson v. Rouse, 81 Wash. 102, 109, 142 P. 464 (1914); Ault v. Interstate Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 15 Wash. 627, 635, 47 P. 13 (1896); see also Tassoni v. Dep't of Ret. Sys., 108 Wash.App. 77, 87, 29 P.3d 63 (2001) (holding that presumption was ......
-
Bond v. Wiegardt, 31046.
... ... appears to us that the lease and the loan did not create any ... obligation at the outset; that ... receiving the notes, and in holding Ault as a maker, under ... the circumstances. In fact, it ... Ault v. Interstate Saving & Loan Ass'n, 15 Wash ... 627, 47 P. 13, ... ...
-
American Surety Company of New York v. Blake
... ... received. (Ault v. Interstate Sav. & Loan Assn., 15 ... Wash. 627, 47 P ... ...
-
Collins v. Collins
... ... offset by the positive evidence of nonreceipt. Ault v ... Interstate Saving & Loan Ass'n, 15 Wash. 627, ... ...