Cochran v. Cochran, 18817.

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Washington
• Writing for the Court: MAIN, J.
• Citation: 133 Wash. 415,233 P. 918
• Parties: COCHRAN v. COCHRAN.
• Docket Number: 18817.
• Decision Date: 13 March 1925

233 P. 918

133 Wash. 415

COCHRAN
v.
COCHRAN.

No. 18817.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 13, 1925

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, Benton County; Truax, Judge.

Action by Irvin E. Cochran against Morgan V. Cochran. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed. [233 P. 919]

Stephen E. Phaffee and R. John Lichty, both of Sunnyside, for appellant.

G. W. Hamilton, of Prosser, and Thomas H. Wilson, of Yakima, for respondent.

MAIN, J.

This was an action at law for the recovery of a money judgment. The cause was tried to the court without a jury. Upon the trial it was stipulated [133 Wash. 416] that the record in the case of Morgan V. Cochran v. Irwin E. Cochran, 114 Wash. 499, 195 P. 224, 198 P. 270, should be considered as a part of the record in this case. In this action Irvin E. Cochran is plaintiff, and Morgan V. Cochran defendant. The trial resulted in findings of fact and conclusions of law, sustaining the plaintiff's right to recover and a judgment was entered in the sum of $2,619.44, which included the original advancement and interest thereon up to that time, from which the defendant appeals.

The general facts and the history of the transactions out of which the litigation arose in both cases are fully stated in Cochran v. Cochran, supra, and need not be here repeated except by way of summary only. The appellant in this action was the owner of a tract of land upon which there was a mortgage. The parties are brothers. There were numerous transactions between them. The respondent, being the older, generally looked after business affairs for the appellant, his younger brother. The appellant was unable to pay the mortgage, and it had been foreclosed. The expiration of the time for redemption was approaching. The respondent advanced money which went into the redemption of the property. The matter stood in this way, and the brothers from time to time discussed or talked over their affairs. On the 4th of March, 1918, they had a conversation relative to the amount which the appellant was owing the respondent, and relative to adjusting their affairs, because the appellant was to be married on the next day. But nothing came of this conversation. Some time thereafter Morgan V. Cochran, the appellant here, brought an action to quiet title. Irvin E. Cochran, the respondent in this case, answered, and by way of affirmative defense sought the enforcement of an equitable lien against the property for the money that he had advanced towards[133 Wash. 417] the redemption. To this defense a demurrer was sustained. He then pleaded as an affirmative defense that by reason of his advancement of the money a resulting trust existed in his behalf. The cause went to trial and resulted in a judgment establishing that he was the owner of nineteen twenty-eighths of the land by reason of such resulting trust. From the judgment entered Morgan Cochran appealed, and the judgment was reversed, holding that a resulting trust did not exist. Thereafter the present action was brought to recover a money judgment, and resulted as above indicated.

The appellant in this action pleaded as an affirmative defense that Morgan's answer in the previous case was res adjudicata, and his testimony in that action estopped him from maintaining the present action. The cause went to trial without a reply to this affirmative defense being filed. The appellant now insists that by reason of that fact his affirmative defense was admitted and the cause should be decided in his favor.

The present action was tried...