Dodd v. Bowles

• Citation: 19 P. 156,3 Wash.Terr. 383
• Parties: DODD ET AL. v. BOWLES, SHERIFF, ET AL.
• Decision Date: 02 February 1888
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Washington

19 P. 156

3 Wash.Terr. 383

DODD ET AL. v. BOWLES, SHERIFF, ET AL.

Supreme Court of Territory of Washington

February 2, 1888

Error to district court, First district.

Claim by plaintiffs in error, Charles H. Dodd & Co., to certain property levied on by defendant in error Archer S. Bowles sheriff, as the property of one Davenport, under an execution in favor of defendants in error, E. E. Roberts, A. Sommers and D. Sommers. From a judgment finding the title to property to be in Davenport, Dodd & Co. bring error.

Eaton & Stanford, for plaintiffs in error.

Sharpstein & Son, for defendants in error.

TURNER, J.

The court below adopted as its findings of fact in this case an agreed statement of facts presented by the parties in lieu of testimony. Findings of facts, made by the court and filed are a part of the record. Code, §§ 451, 464. The point is not well taken, therefore, that the only matters of record before this court are the pleadings in the lower court, and the judgment of the lower court. Turning to the merits of the case, we find that the plaintiffs in error were claimants, in the court below, of certain farm machinery seized by the defendant in error Bowles, under execution, as the property of one Davenport; and the issue tried was whether the property in said machinery, at the time of said seizure, was in the plaintiffs in error or in the said Davenport. By the agreed statement the following facts were admitted: "(1) That Davenport applied to plaintiffs (Charles H. Dodd & Co.) to purchase the property described in the affidavit filed in this case, and they agreed upon the price for the same. (2) That the said property was delivered by plaintiffs to said Davenport, upon the notes or contracts marked Exhibits 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' 'D,' and 'E,' which said exhibits are to be considered as a part of the facts in the case. (3) That defendants Sommers and Roberts had no notice of plaintiffs' claim. (4) That the claims of Sommers and Roberts against Davenport are correct and regular. (5) That, at the time of attaching of the property by Sommers and Roberts, it was in the possession of Davenport, and he was using and operating the same in all respects as if he was the owner thereof; and that he was such owner unless, by virtue of the aforesaid contracts or notes the title remained in plaintiffs, at the time the same was attached, as against the said attaching creditor." The exhibits referred to were all alike, except as to dates and amounts. The following is a copy of Exhibit A:

"$300.00.

CENTERVILLE, OR., September 1, 1884.

"On or before October 1, 1886, after date, without grace, for value received, we promise to pay to the order of Chas. H Dodd & Co., at the office of Chas. H. Dodd & Co., at Portland, Or., three hundred dollars, payable in gold coin of the United States of America, with interest thereon in like coin from date until paid, at the rate of ten per cent. per annum. And in case a suit or action is...