Gilmer v. Holland Inv. Co.

• Decision Date: 23 March 1905
• Citation: 79 P. 1103,37 Wash. 589
• Parties: GILMER v. HOLLAND INV. CO. et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

79 P. 1103

37 Wash. 589

GILMER v. HOLLAND INV. CO. et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 23, 1905

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Boyd J. Tallman, Judge.

Action by E. E. Gilmer against the Holland Investment Company and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, the investment company appeals. Affirmed.

APPEAL--TRIAL--IMPROPER EVIDENCE--MOTION--WAIVER.

1. Improper evidence admitted in an equity case will be disregarded on appeal, and its admission is not cause for reversal.

APPEAL--TRIAL--IMPROPER EVIDENCE--MOTION--WAIVER.

2. Any error in overruling a motion for nonsuit, made at the conclusion of plaintiff's evidence in chief, is waived by defendant going on with the trial.

[Ed Note.--For cases in point, see vol. 46, Cent. Dig. Trial, § 982.]

G. M Emory, for appellant.

Fulton & Faben, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant is a corporation organized under the laws of this state. Its articles of incorporation authorize it to engage in several distinct businesses, and as one of such it engaged in a sort of a building and loan business. It is somewhat difficult to understand, even when aided by the explanations of the president of the corporation, just what rights were granted a subscriber by the contract issued to him. In the language of that officer these contracts were 'a peculiarly reading proposition,' but the general scheme was that whenever enough money had been paid in by the subscribers to equal the face value of a contract that sum was to be loaned to the oldest contract holder to be used in building a home; he agreeing to repay the money in monthly installments of fixed amounts. How the scheme would have worked in practice the evidence does not disclose. The only contracts that ever matured were those held by officers of the company, and they did not seem to care to take advantage of the privileges the contracts afforded. In lieu thereof they built some three houses, which they assert the corporation holds in trust for its home building fund notwithstanding the title thereto stand in the name of certain of its officers. This action is brought by a contract holder for the purpose of having a receiver appointed, the affairs of the corporation wound up, and its property divided among those entitled thereto. The right to the relief is based on the allegation that the affairs of the concern have been mismanaged, that it is insolvent, and that the scheme pursued is...