Bassett v. Thrall

Decision Date12 June 1899
Citation21 Wash. 231,57 P. 806
PartiesBASSETT v. THRALL et al.
CourtWashington Supreme Court

Appeal from superior court, Lincoln county; C. H. Neal, Judge.

Action by I. A. Bassett, executor of William Fisk, deceased, against Charley A. and Frank W. Thrall. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant Frank W. Thrall appeals. Reversed as to the appellant.

Myers & Warren, for appellant.

I. A. Bassett, H. N. Martin, and Harris Baldwin, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This is an action upon a promissory note. The appellant was a surety on said note. The record shows that payments had been made on the note by the principal, so that as to him the statute of limitations would not run; but no payments had been made by the surety, and more than six years had elapsed between the maturity of the note and the action upon the same. Judgment was given against both principal and surety. There is absolutely no testimony in this case showing payment or ratification of payments by the appellant; hence the case falls squarely within the rule announced by this court in Stubblefield v. McAuliff, 55 P. 637. In fact, that case went further than it would be necessary to go to reverse the case at bar. The judgment will therefore be reversed, with instructions to dismiss the action so far as the appellant is concerned.

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • J. M. Arthur & Co. v. Burke
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • February 1, 1915
    ... ... Perkins v ... Jennings, 27 Wash. 145, 67 P. 590; Stubblefield v ... McAuliff, 20 Wash. 442, 55 P. 637; Bassett v ... Thrall, 21 Wash. 231, 57 P. 806; 1 Wood on Limitations ... (2d Ed.) § 97; Good v. Ehrlich, 67 Kan. 94, 72 P ... 545, 546; ... ...
  • Perkins v. Jennings
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • January 4, 1902
    ...revive or continue an obligation as against the other, without express authority so to do. This rule was also followed in Bassett v. Thrall, 21 Wash. 231, 57 P. 806. The of Stubblefield v. McAuliff, supra, was cited approvingly in recent decisions from this court not published, and the doct......
  • Van De Ven v. Overlook Min. & Development Co.
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • January 9, 1928
    ...it is made under his or their direction, or is ratified by him or them. Stubblefield v. McAuliff, 20 Wash. 442, 55 P. 637; Bassett v. Thrall, 21 Wash. 231, 57 P. 806; Perkins v. Jennings, 27 Wash. 145, 67 P. Arthur & Co. v. Burke, 83 Wash. 690, 145 P. 974; Farmers' & Mechanics' Bank v. San ......
  • Farmers' & Mechanics' Bank v. San Poil Consol. Co.
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • August 24, 1923
    ...affect the statute of limitations only as to him, unless such payment was 'authorized or ratified' by the other maker. Bassett v. Thrall, 21 Wash. 231, 57 P. 806; Hanna v. Kasson, 26 Wash. 568, 67 P. Perkins v. Jennings, 27 Wash. 145, 67 P. 590; Arthur & Co. v. Burke, 83 Wash. 690, 145 P. 9......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT