Bush v. Quaiffe

• Decision Date: 08 April 1926
• Docket Number: 19538.
• Citation: 138 Wash. 533,244 P. 704
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: BUSH et al. v. QUAIFFE et ux.

244 P. 704

138 Wash. 533

BUSH et al. v. QUAIFFE et ux.

No. 19538.

Supreme Court of Washington

April 8, 1926

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, Cowlitz County; Kirby, Judge.

Action by Clark Bush and others against H. H. Quaiffe and wife. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Miller Wilkinson & Miller, of Vancouver, for appellants.

Atwell & Moore, of Kelso, and Jos. O'Neill, of Castle Rock, for respondents.

ASKREN J.

This is an action to compel specific performance of a three-way oral contract for the exchange of lands. From a judgment in favor of the defendants plaintiffs have appealed.

The facts, briefly, are as follows:

Appellants Bush and wife are the owners of an 80-acre farm in Clark county; appellants Wilson and wife of an 80-acre farm in Clark county; and respondents Quaiffe and wife of 260 acres in Thurston county. In the early summer of 1924 there was an attempted trade between the owners of the Bush land and the owners of the Quaiffe land. This deal was not consummated. Shortly thereafter another attempt to trade was made with added consideration. This deal also fell through.

These attempted deals were handled through a real estate firm known as the Columbia Investment Company. They proposed another deal whereby the Quaiffe land should go to the Wilsons; the Wilson land to the Bushes; and the Bush land in turn to be deeded to the Quaiffes. Practically all the negotiations in connection with this deal were handled through the Columbia Investment Company. No written contract was ever entered into, but the parties proceeded to get the deal in shape by investigating the properties and having abstracts brought down to date. Before the abstracts of the Quaiffe land were completed and ready for examination respondent H. H. Quaiffe, who had done all the negotiating as far as respondents were concerned with reference to the trade, became dissatisfied because the real estate firm who handled the matter received certain moneys to be paid on a mortgage which stood upon the Bush land, and which was purchased by Quaiffe. He also claimed that he learned that in the three-way exchange of the property the real estate firm was to receive 80 acres of the Quaiffe land for making the deal. About this time Bush moved onto the Wilson property and Wilson moved to Seattle, where he purchased a home, and arranged to go into business. When respondents Quaiffe refused to deliver their property, this action was brought to compel specific performance. The trial court refused relief upon two grounds: (1) That there had been no part performance of the contract sufficient to take the oral agreement out of the statute of frauds; and (2) that the property was community property, and that Mrs. Quaiffe never consented or agreed to the trade.

In order to avoid incumbering the decision with a large number of facts which are unnecessary to this decision, we have...