Hall v. Law Guarantee & Trust Soc., Ltd., of London, England

• Decision Date: 30 March 1900
• Citation: 22 Wash. 305,60 P. 643
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: HALL v. LAW GUARANTEE & TRUST SOC., LIMITED, OF LONDON, ENGLAND.

60 P. 643

22 Wash. 305

HALL v. LAW GUARANTEE & TRUST SOC., LIMITED, OF LONDON, ENGLAND.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 30, 1900

Appeal from superior court, King county; Jacobs, Judge.

Action by M. V. Hall against the Law Guarantee & Trust Society Limited, of London, England. From a judgment for plaintiff defendant appeals. Reversed.

Greene & Griffiths, for appellant.

Martin Joslin & Griffin, for respondent.

DUNBAR J.

This is an action in replevin to recover certain personal property described in the complaint, or to recover the value thereof. The complaint was the ordinanry complaint in replevin. The answer was a general denial. The property sought to be replevied was 30 curtains, 10 window screens 2 screen doors, 1 table or sideboard, 1 hot-water tank, 1 windmill, 25 globes for electric and gas lights, and 25 gas and electric light fixtures. The value of all the property was alleged to be $350. The verdict was as follows: 'We, the jury in the above-entitled cause, do find for the plaintiff, and that said plaintiff is the owner of the property mentioned in the complaint, and that the value of said property is the sum of $330.' The judgment, after reciting certain facts, concludes as follows: 'It is therefore ordered, considered, and decreed that the plaintiff do have and recover of and from the defendant the sum of three hundred and thirty dollars, together with interest thereon from the 21st day of April, A. D. 1899, together with her costs and disbursements in this action.'

A great many errors are alleged, the most of which allegations, we think, are without merit. We think no errors were committed in the admission or rejection of testimony. On the main proposition, as to whether the property sued for was property which followed the realty, it is hardly worth while to discuss the many cases cited by appellant; for under the decision of this court in Trust Co. v. Miller, 20 Wash. 607, 56 P. 382, and in accordance with modern authority generally, it is clear that the property sued for here was in no way affected by the mortgage; and the mortgage so tenaciously sought to be introduced in evidence notwithstanding the admission of the respondent that the premises had been sold under the mortgage and that the exemption period had expired, did not affect the character of the property in the least. We also think that the demand upon a qualified agent of the appellant--if, indeed, a demand was necessary--was amply proven. The verdict, too, in our judgment, is in conformity with the requirements of the statute; and we think that the recital in the judgment that the jury found that the plaintiff was entitled to the possession and return of the property was justified by the verdict, although not expressed in so many words. The statement of the jury that they found for the defendant under the allegations of the complaint is equivalent, although it is not the requirement of section 5020, 2 Ballinger's Ann. Codes & St., as contended by the appellant, that the jury shall find who is entitled to the possession of the property. The section is as follows: 'In an action for the recovery of specific personal property, if the property has not been delivered to the plaintiff, or the defendant by his answer claim a return thereof, the jury shall assess the value of the property if their verdict be in favor of the plaintiff; or if they find in favor of the defendant, and that he is entitled to a return thereof, they may at the same time assess the damages, if any are claimed in the complaint or answer, which the prevailing party has sustained by reason of the detention or taking and withholding such property.' It will be seen that the only requirement made of the jury, when they find in favor of the plaintiff, and the property has not been returned to the plaintiff, is to assess the value of the property. But, if they find in favor of the defendant when the possession of the property has been taken from him, they find that he is...