Falls v. Soles
| Citation | 244 P. 707,138 Wash. 407 |
| Decision Date | 02 April 1926 |
| Docket Number | 19692. |
| Parties | FALLS et al. v. SOLES et ux. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
Department 2.
Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County; Clifford, Judge.
Action by R. L. Falls and another against P. B. Soles and wife to foreclose a lien. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Chas W. Stewart, of Tacoma, for appellants.
L. B Sulgrove, of Tacoma, for respondents.
Respondents R. L. Falls and R. W. Robbins brought this action to foreclose a lien for the balance due for material and labor in painting and kalsomining a building belonging to appellants P. B. Soles and wife, in Pierce county. Findings and conclusions were in favor of the respondents on which judgment was entered foreclosing the lien.
The assignments of error present two points. First, it is contended the respondents were not entitled to maintain the action under section 9980, Rem. Comp. Stat., for the reason that they carried on business under an assumed name and that they did not allege or prove they had filed in the office of the county clerk a certificate as provided for in section 9976, Rem. Comp. Stat., setting out their assumed business name, together with the true and real names of the parties conducting the business, and the post office address of each.
Clearly the statutes are not applicable here. The work was done under a written contract prepared by the appellant P. B. Soles. In the body of the contract the contractors are named or designated 'Messrs. Robbins & Falls--known as--Star Paint Co., 404 E. 26th St., Tacoma, Wash.' The contract was signed 'R. W. Robbins, R. L. Falls,' as individuals only. It was also signed by P. B. Soles. R. W. Robbins and R L. Falls personally performed the contract and were paid by the appellants all except the balance sued for on the contract. They did not conduct this business under an assumed business style or name, but in their proper individual names. The proof does not go beyond their transactions in this case.
The other assignment presents the question of a proper understanding of one clause of the contract as to the manner in which a part of the work should be performed, and the balance actually due the respondents under the contract. Upon these questions there was a conflict in the evidence. The court disagreed somewhat with the contentions of each side as presented by the pleadings and a liberal admission of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Laliberte v. Wilkins
...cases allowing exemptions for a partnership when the surnames of all partners were contained in the business name. In Falls v. Soles, 138 Wash. 407, 244 P. 707 (1926), plaintiff contractors agreed to perform labor. In the body of the written contract they were named as Messrs. Robbins and F......
-
Renfroe v. Taggares
...the parties were doing business under a corporate name which incorporated their surnames, I. e., Neill Electric. Also Falls v. Soles, 138 Wash. 407, 244 P. 707 (1926), is not apropos. The court in Falls found the owners did not conduct their business under an assumed business style or name ......