Hardgrove v. Bowman
| Decision Date | 18 August 1941 |
| Docket Number | 28312. |
| Citation | 116 P.2d 336,10 Wn.2d 136 |
| Parties | HARDGROVE v. BOWMAN. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1.
Action by O. O. Hardgrove against C. C. Bowman to recover the amount of the enhanced value of realty which was set over to the defendant in lieu of homestead, resulting from labor and improvements that plaintiff had put on the land during his occupancy under an invalid lease. From an adverse judgment the defendant appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Appeal from Superior Court, Clallam County; John A. Frater, judge.
Ralph Smythe, of Port Angeles, and Vanderveer, Bassett & Geisness of Seattle, for appellant.
D. E Harper and J. W. Lindsay, both of Port Angeles, and Graham, Howe & Dunn, of Seattle, for respondent.
This litigation is an aftermath of our decision in Bowman v. Hardgrove, 200 Wash. 78, 93 P.2d 303. By reference to the opinion in that case, it will be recalled that we held a ten-year lease, executed by Bowman, as lessor, to Hardgrove, as lessee, invalid because it was not executed by Mrs. Bowman. Hardgrove had been in possession of the property for about a year Before he was dispossessed under the judgment in that action. Subsequently, Mrs. Bowman died, and, in the administration of her estate, the property was set over to Bowman in lieu of homestead. Hardgrove then brought this action to recover the amount of the enhanced value of the land resulting from labor and improvements he had put upon it during his occupancy.
The action is brought upon the doctrine of unjust enrichment, which is recognized and applied in a number of our decisions. Ernst v. Schmidt, 66 Wash. 452, 119 P. 828, Ann.Cas.1913C, 389; Gregory v. Peabody, 149 Wash. 227, 270 P. 825. The underlying theory of the doctrine is that, where one expends money and labor in the improvement of the property of another upon the faith of an unenforceable contract, he is, upon repudiation of the agreement by the owner, entitled to be reimbursed for improvements enhancing the value of the property. Pitt v. Moore, 99 N.C. 85, 5 S.E. 389, 6 Am.St.Rep. 489. The measure of damages is the amount the property has been enhanced in value by such labor and improvements, less any damages suffered by the owner during the occupancy of the putative vendee or tenant. Crawford v. Smith, 127 Wash. 77, 219 P. 855; Gregory v. Peabody, 153 Wash. 99, 279 P. 102. Applying such measure of damages, the trial court concluded that plaintiff was entitled to recover twenty-five hundred dollars, and entered judgment accordingly. Defendant appeals.
The only error assigned is because of the refusal of the court to admit or consider evidence offered by appellant of damages which he claimed to have sustained because of alleged breaches of the lease by respondent. In other words, he now seeks to recover for breaches of a lease which this court, at his own instance, held invalid and unenforceable. His position here is utterly inconsistent with the one he took in the former case.
A litigant will not be heard to say in one breath that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anfinson v. Fedex Ground Package Sys., Inc.
...review denied,168 Wash.2d 1033, 230 P.3d 1061 (2010). This distinction cannot be reconciled with our decision in Hardgrove v. Bowman, 10 Wash.2d 136, 116 P.2d 336 (1941). The Hardgrove court approved of the application of judicial estoppel where a litigant had, in a previous case, successfu......
-
King v. Clodfelter
...to avoid inconsistency, duplicity and the waste of time. Rushlight v. McLain, 28 Wash.2d 189, 182 P.2d 62 (1947); Hardgrove v. Browman, 10 Wash.2d 136, 116 P.2d 336 (1941); 28 Am.Jur.2d Estoppel & Waiver § 71 (1966); 31 C.J.S. Estoppel §§ 117, 118 There is some indication in the authorities......
-
Miller v. McCamish
...(1928); Gregory v. Peabody, 153 Wash. 99, 279 P. 102 (1929); Lager v. Berggren, 191 Wash. 437, 71 P.2d 377 (1937); Hardgrove v. Bowman, 10 Wash.2d 136, 116 P.2d 336 (1941). However, this Court, heretofore, has consistently disallowed and voided actions seeking the remedy of legal damages up......
-
Etalook v. Exxon Pipeline Co.
...retain the benefits resulting when Alyeska improved the property in reliance upon an unenforceable contract. See Hardgrove v. Bowman, 10 Wash.2d 136, 116 P.2d 336, 337 (1941). III. Punitive Etalook contends that the district court erred in refusing to permit her to seek and prove punitive d......