Bradford-Kennedy Co. v. Buchanan

• Decision Date: 16 June 1916
• Docket Number: 13307.
• Citation: Bradford-Kennedy Co. v. Buchanan, 91 Wash. 539, 158 P. 76 (Wash. 1916)
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: BRADFORD-KENNEDY CO. v. BUCHANAN.

158 P. 76

91 Wash. 539

BRADFORD-KENNEDY CO. v. BUCHANAN.

No. 13307.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 16, 1916

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County; M. L. Clifford Judge.

Action by the Bradford-Kennedy Company against James Buchanan. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Remanded.

F. D Oakley and John E. Gallagher, both of Tacoma, for appellant.

Gordon & Remann and A. O. Burmeister, all of Tacoma, for respondent.

BAUSMAN J.

Tacoma Lumber & Shingle Company, which had been shipping shingles to the plaintiff company in Nebraska and had already executed to it a chattel mortgage, had become embarrassed and at a certain time the plaintiff's president, one Bradford consulted with the shingle company's officers at Tacoma as to furnishing it further aid. With Crandall, the president of the shingle company, Bradford had long acquaintance. He had at one time been his employer, and he accepted his suggestion that defendant Buchanan act as a depositary or agent in further advances. The result was a conversation between Bradford and Buchanan in which the latter undertook to act. Two thousand dollars was to be put in his hands by Bradford. With this logs were to be bought as the property of Bradford's company. Whatever the conversation may have been, it finally was merged in a letter from Bradford transmitting the $2,000. This letter is as follows:

'In order to facilitate matters (as I judge from Mr. Crandall's telegram that it needs quick action), rather than wait for draft, am inclosing you voucher for $2,000 as per my agreement with you; i. e., to the effect that the money is to be paid for logs delivered to the mill of the Tacoma Lumber & Shingle Co. to be sawn for our account, shingles or proceeds of same to be turned over to us as soon as sawn and dried, less 75¢ per M to be paid by you to the Tacoma Lumber & Shingle Co. for sawing, drying, loading, etc.

'Please see that shipments are made as rapidly as possible, and the amount returned as soon as it can be done, without inconvenience to the operation.'

Buchanan depositing the money to his own account speedily expended the whole in logs which he turned over to the shingle company. Shingles were later shipped to the Bradford Company, but no definite testimony is produced as to their quantity. According to defendant's testimony all these logs seem to have been, as fast as manufactured, turned over in carload lots to Bradford, who, however, relates the receipt of only one. This was, it is admitted, accompanied by the shingle company's draft for payment as if it were not the product of the Bradford Company's own logs. This draft he paid, protesting immediately, however, and demanding in a letter to Buchanan and a communication to Crandall, that the product be shipped and the $2,000 spent according to what he called the terms of the letter.

The shingle company going soon after into the hands of a receiver, plaintiff contends that it has never received any of this $2,000 from Buchanan or the shingle company either in product or in cash. Buchanan for his part shows conclusively that he at least has got none of this money, and that, while he paid some debts of the shingle company, he was acting entirely gratuitously as a friend to both other parties, and, as he thought, carrying out terms agreed to by Bradford in Tacoma and not modified by the letter. In a word, he argues that he believed he was to use this money as a revolving logpurchasing fund, that the Bradford Company would demand free shingles only as the shingle company could afford to ship them without immediate payment, that the Bradford Company would continue to pay for the shingles if necessary to keep the concern going, and be satisfied if shingles not shipped to it were sold and the proceeds used by Buchanan for the purchase of further logs as the Bradford Company's property.

This case...