Knowles v. La Pure, 26431.

• Decision Date: 18 March 1937
• Docket Number: 26431.
• Parties: KNOWLES et ux. v. LA PURE et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

65 P.2d 1260

189 Wash. 456

KNOWLES et ux. v. LA PURE et al.

No. 26431.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 18, 1937

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Calvin S. Hall, Judge.

Action by Herbert Knowles and wife against Phoebe R. La Pure and another. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

Philip Tworoger, of Seattle, for appellants.

John Wesley Dolby, of Seattle, for respondents.

MILLARD Justice.

Alleging that defendant vendors unlawfully repossessed the subject-matter thereof, thereby rescinding a contract for the purchase of certain improved real estate in King county plaintiff vendees brought this action to recover the portion of the stipulated purchase price paid by them to defendant vendors. In a second cause of action, plaintiffs sought recovery of the value of personal property claimed to have been converted to defendants' use at the time of the repossession of the real property. The cause was tried to the court, which found that plaintiffs were entitled to recovery of $509.55 on their first cause of action and $100 on their second cause of action. Judgment accordingly was entered. Defendants appealed.

Appellants complain of the finding that their acts constituted a rescission of the contract, and also urge as error the finding that appellants converted to their own use certain personal property of the respondents.

The findings are summarized as follows: Respondents entered into a real estate contract August 20, 1928, with appellants under the terms of which the latter agreed to sell to the former certain improved real property in King county. Two hundred dollars of the purchase price of $2,400 was paid at the time of the execution of the contract. The balance was payable, with interest at 7 per centum per annum, $100 thirty days after the execution of the contract, and $30 monthly thereafter. The respondents went into immediate possession of the property and paid the stipulated installments up to and including July, 1931. Thereafter, by mutual agreement, the contract was modified in that the monthly installments were reduced from $30 to $10. The respondents often failed to make payments as required by the modified agreement. By acceptance of the payments after their due date, appellants waived strict performance, on the part of the respondents in making the stipulated payments. Respondents made five monthly payments of $7.91, and thereafter twelve monthly payments of $10. The respondents used, occupied, and held possession of the property from August 20, 1928, to April 1, 1934. On the latter date, the appellants 'unlawfully and against the will of the respondents entered into and upon said property.' The appellants excluded ...