Gray v. Fuller
| Decision Date | 07 April 1915 |
| Docket Number | 12410. |
| Citation | 85 Wash. 13,147 P. 402 |
| Parties | GRAY et ux. v. FULLER et al. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Kenneth Mackintosh, Judge.
Action by Joshua M. Gray and wife against Mae Fuller and another. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
James L. Crotty and John T. Casey, both of Seattle for appellants.
John Mills Day, of Seattle, for respondents.
This action was brought to rescind a sale of a half interest in an employment office, and to recover back the money paid therefor, for the alleged reason that the sale was induced by fraudulent representations. The case was tried to the court without a jury and resulted in a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, as prayed for in the complaint. The defendants have appealed.
The respondents have moved to strike the appellants' abstract statement of facts, transcript, and the briefs, and for an order to dismiss the appeal. We are satisfied that the case must be affirmed upon the merits, and shall therefore not notice the motion.
The appellants have assigned several errors upon the rulings of the court in admitting and rejecting testimony during the trial. These assignments are not urged in the brief, and we shall for that reason not notice them here.
The appellants urge that the trial court made no findings of fact, and that by reason thereof the judgment should be reversed. The judgment of the court recites:
'It is found by the court that * * * the defendants, Mae Fuller and George P. Rossman, * * * fraudulently induced the plaintiffs, Joshua M. Gray and Allie Gray, to purchase a one-half interest in said business, good will, and fixtures; * * * that the said sale and conveyance was brought about by the false and fraudulent statements and representations of the defendants, Mae Fuller and George P Rossman; that, upon the discovery of the fraud of the defendants, plaintiffs demanded of said Mae Fuller the return of their money, and offered to convey, surrender, and deliver to her said property and said business. * * *'
It is apparent, we think, that this is the finding of an ultimate fact in the case, and the only one at issue.
He main contention of the appellant is that the evidence is insufficient to show fraud. It appears from the record that in the month of October, 1913, the appellants were partners running an employment office in the city of Seattle. An advertisement was inserted in one of the Seattle newspapers offering the interest of the appellant Mae Fuller for sale. The respondents, upon seeing the advertisement, sought...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCutcheon v. Brownfield
...of being construed and considered as a factual finding. See Ferree v. Doric Co., 62 Wash.2d 561, 383 P.2d 900 (1963); Gray v. Fuller, 85 Wash. 13, 147 P. 402 (1915). Furthermore, if there is no express finding upon a material fact, the fact is deemed to have been found against the party hav......
-
Collins v. Boeing Co., 573--41110--I
...Doric Co., 62 Wash.2d 561, 383 P.2d 900 (1963); McCutcheon v. Brownfield, 2 Wash.App. 348, 356, 467 P.2d 868 (1970). See Gray v. Fuller, 85 Wash. 13, 147 P. 402 (1915). However, we believe that the plaintiff's contentions and the general importance of the issues raised require that the prin......
-
Hanson v. Lee, 219--40011--I
...factual in nature to be treated as a finding. See Ferree v. Doric Co., 62 Wash.2d 561, 567, 383 P.2d 900 (1963); See Gray v. Fuller, 85 Wash. 13, 147 P. 402 (1915). To the extent that it is a finding, it is supported by evidence of a mutual agreement for the construction and the use of the ......
-
PH & FM ROOTS CO. v. United States
...v. Eagleson, 29 Idaho, 177, 157 P. 1122; Schley v. Andrews (Sup.) 151 N. Y. S. 429; Home v. Collins, 97 Kan. 87, 154 P. 274; Gray v. Fuller, 85 Wash. 13, 147 P. 402; Trust Co. v. Tract Co., 89 Conn. 59, 92 A. 880; Hitchcock v. Rooney, 171 Cal. 285, 152 P. As stated in 26 R. C. L. 1092: "It ......