Helsley v. American Mineral Production Co.

• Citation: 118 Wash. 571,204 P. 190
• Decision Date: 06 February 1922
• Docket Number: 16591.
• Parties: HELSLEY v. AMERICAN MINERAL PRODUCTION CO.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

204 P. 190

118 Wash. 571

HELSLEY v. AMERICAN MINERAL PRODUCTION CO.

No. 16591.

Supreme Court of Washington

February 6, 1922

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; R. M. Webster, Judge.

Action by F. M. Helsley against the American Mineral Production Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Zent &amp Jesseph, of Spokane, for appellant.

Post Russell & Higgins, of Spokane, for respondent.

BRIDGES J.

The chief question involved in this appeal is concerning splitting causes of action. The facts are as follows:

On the 14th day of July, 1917, the plaintiff sold to the defendant his interest in certain automobile trucks. The consideration to be paid by the defendant was, first, $5,500 in money, to be paid on the 18th of July, 1917 (four days after the sale) and, second, the agreement on the part of the defendant to pay certain designated accounts or bills of the plaintiff, which were then due and owing. Defendant took possession of the trucks. It refused to make the $5,500 money payment on the date agreed on, and within a few days thereafter the plaintiff brought suit against it to recover the amount of such cash payment. This suit was later transferred to the United States District Court, where, after trial, judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, and that judgment was subsequently paid.

This suit was instituted several months after the sale of the trucks, and its purpose was to recover of defendant $606.14 being the amount of bills and accounts of the plaintiff which the defendant had assumed and agreed to pay as part of the consideration for the sale of the trucks, and which the plaintiff had been required to, and did, pay previously to the bringing of this action. The case was tried to the court without a jury, and findings, substantially in accordance with the facts as we have stated them, were made by the trial court. That court further found, and we think correctly, that in the previous suit the plaintiff testified that the consideration for the trucks was the sum of $5,500, and the assumption of the debts heretofore mentioned. It appears that the plaintiff in that action did not seek to recover, and did not recover, anything other than the $5,500 which was to be paid in cash, although he knew that the debts which the defendant agreed to pay had not been paid. The court's conclusion was that the case should be dismissed and judgment was entered in accordance therewith.

The plaintiff had appealed from that judgment. There is nothing in the record to show on what ground or for what reason the case was dismissed; but, judging from the briefs, it was because the court considered the contract of sale an entire and indivisible one, and that the appellant was bound to make all of his recovery in one action, and that the action in the federal court was a bar to further suit on the contract. These are the only questions which have been discussed here.

Whether more than one suit can be brought to recover on a single contract depends on whether or not that contract is divisible or indivisible. The courts and authorities can do nothing more than lay down general rules concerning this question and such rules are seldom determinative of the questions arising...