Cummings v. Nordmark
| Decision Date | 14 March 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 38926,38926 |
| Citation | 438 P.2d 605,73 Wn.2d 322 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | Harry L. CUMMINGS and Jane Doe Cummings, his wife, and Eugene O. Martenson and Jane Doe Martenson, his wife, Respondents, v. John NORDMARK, Individually, and as general partner of Overlake Shopping Center Associates, a limited partnership, and Jane Doe Nordmark, his wife, and N.W.C. Associates, a limited partnership, and Overlake Park, Inc., a Washington corporation, Appellants. |
Cartano, Botzer & Chapman, Robert A. O'Neill, Seattle, for appellants.
Ferguson & Burdell, Seattle, for respondents.
This is an action by plaintiffs for judgment for the reasonable value of architectural services performed by them in designing a 'Sports Building' in Overlake Park, Redmond, Washington, pursuant to a written contract dated March 12, 1962. The contract was signed
General Partner
John Nordmark and Associates.
Mr. Nordmark was the sole general partner of defendant 'John Nordmark and Associates,' a limited partnership formed to purchase a 35-acre tract of land known as the Svihla property. The certificate of limited partnership provided:
The character of the business is the acquisition for investment only, and not for development except for rental purposes, of real property in King County, Washington.
Defendant, 'N.W.C. and Associates,' is the same limited partnership as 'John Nordmark and Associates'; the name was changed subsequent to the acts giving rise to the cause of action in the instant case.
Overlake Park, Inc., owned the land on which the sports building was to be constructed. This, however, was not known to plaintiffs. Mr. Nordmark was a director of the corporation.
He was also the sole general partner of a limited partnership known as 'Overlake Shopping Center Associates.' Its purpose was to 'acquire, hold, vote, and manage 56.5% Of the stock of Overlake Park, Inc., a Washington corporation.'
Although separated by other property, the Svihla tract is quite near the property owned by Overlake Park, Inc. One of the plaintiffs testified that he knew that John Nordmark and Associates were 'dealing in the Overlake Park area,' and that 'they did have land at that point.' He testified further that Mr. Nordmark 'had been 'Mr. Overlake Park' for many years.' Mr. Nordmark had furnished to plaintiffs, during the time they were working upon the project, various plans and layouts, including a detailed sketch of suggested landscaping of the property prepared by landscape architects for 'J. Nordmark Assoc.--Overlake Park Sports Center.'
The trial court found as a fact that Mr. Nordmark's authority to contract for architectural services was within his apparent authority as the general partner of John Nordmark and Associates; was apparently within the nature of the business, as characterized by the certificate of limited partnership; and that plaintiffs had the right to rely upon the fact that Mr. Nordmark, as the sole general partner, had authority to enter into the contract on behalf of John Nordmark and Associates.
The reasonableness of plaintiffs' charges is not contested. The court entered judgment against N.W.C. Associates (formerly John Nordmark and Associates) with interest from the date of demand to the date of judgment.
N.W.C. and Associates appeal. They make five assignments of error, three to findings of fact and two to conclusions of law.
Defendants-appellants assign error to a finding of fact and to a conclusion of law that the amount due to plaintiffs is a liquidated amount upon which plaintiffs are entitled to interest from date of demand. These assignments are not argued in defendants'-appellants' brief. We do not consider them; we assume they have been abandoned. DeHeer v. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 60 Wash.2d 122, 126, 372 P.2d 193 (1962); Frey v. Kent City Nursing Home, Inc., 62 Wash.2d 953, 958, 385 P.2d 323 (1963).
A general partner in a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Windcrest Owners Ass'n v. Allstate Ins. Co.
... ... briefing, we assume it is abandoned and will not consider it ... on appeal. Cummings v. Nordmark , 73 Wn.2d 322, 324, ... 438 P.2d 605 (1968) ... [ 4 ] This is known as the "sham ... affidavit" doctrine. Behr v ... ...
-
Cascade Partnership v. Commissioner
...business as being incident or appropriate to such business according to the course and usage of conducting it." Cummings v. Nordmark, 438 P.2d 605, 606 (Wash. 1968) (quoting Merrill v. O'Bryan, 93 P. 917, 918 (Wash. 1908)). Whether a partner is within the scope of his authority is a questio......
-
Budget Rent-A-Car of Washington-Oregon, Inc. v. Washington State Dept. of Revenue
...fact. We must assume the Department of Revenue has abandoned the assignment of error, at least to that extent. Cummings v. Nordmark, 73 Wash.2d 322, 438 P.2d 605 (1968); Sepich v. Department of Labor & Indus., 75 Wash.2d 312, 450 P.2d 940 (1969). Furthermore, the department has made no cont......
-
Table of Cases
...Wn.2d 135, 614 P.2d 1283 (1980): 3.2(1), 3.2(2), 3.2(3), 3.6 Cummings v. Dolan, 52 Wash. 496, 100 P. 989 (1909): 4.5 Cummings v. Nordmark, 73 Wn.2d 322, 438 P.2d 605 (1968): 5.6(1) Cunningham v. Norwegian Lutheran Church, 28 Wn.2d 953, 184 P.2d 834 (1947): 6.4(5)(d) Cupples v. Level, 54 Was......
-
Table of Cases
...Barovic, 199 Wash. 117, 90 P.2d 724 (1939): 14.3(1)(e) Coughlin v. Pinkerton, 41 Wash. 500, 84 P. 14 (1906): 12.4(1) Cummings v. Nordmark, 73 Wn.2d 322, 438 P.2d 605 (1968): 19.2(1) Curley Elec., Inc. v. Bills, 130 Wn. App. 114, 121 P.3d 106 (2005), review denied, 158 Wn.2d 1007 (2006): 10.......
-
§5.6 - Special Situations for Vesting and Conveyancing
...RCW 25.05.100(1). Whether a partner is acting within the scope of apparent authority is a question of fact. Cummings v. Nordmark, 73 Wn.2d 322, 438 P.2d 605 (1968). Apparent authority is presumed for all transactions falling within the partnership's ordinary course of business. If no appare......
-
§19.2 - Agency Powers of Partners to Obligate the Limited Partnership
...Am. Discount Corp. v. Saratoga W., Inc., 13 Wn. App. 890, 537 P.2d 1056, review denied, 86 Wn.2d 1006 (1975); Cummings v. Nordmark, 73 Wn.2d 322, 438 P.2d 605 The power and authority of a general partner in a limited partnership is generally analogous to the power and authority of a partner......