Konnerup v. Frandsen
| Decision Date | 30 March 1894 |
| Citation | 8 Wash. 551,36 P. 493 |
| Parties | KONNERUP v. FRANDSEN ET UX. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Appeal from superior court, King county; J. W. Langley, Judge.
Action by Rasmus Konnerup against J. C. Frandsen and Elizabeth Frandsen, his wife, for the specific performance of a contract to convey land to plaintiff, or for damages. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
Winsor Bush & Morris, for appellant.
William Martin, for respondents.
The appellant contracted March 14, 1890, to clear certain lands belonging to defendants, and to receive in payment certain other lands, described in the complaint. The agreement was reduced to writing, and signed by J. C Frandsen, the husband of the codefendant, Elizabeth Frandsen. It is conceded that the tract of land which is asked to be conveyed is community property. The prayer is for specific performance of the contract, and for damages in case the contract, for any reason, cannot be enforced. A demurrer was interposed to the complaint, which was overruled by the court. An answer was interposed, and, upon the trial respondents objected to the introduction of plaintiff's evidence, upon the following grounds: The court overruled the first and second objections, but sustained the third objection, and ruled that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to entitle plaintiff to a decree of specific performance, compelling defendants to convey the lands in question. The objection was sustained by the court upon the theory that it appeared from the complaint that the plaintiff's action is based upon a written contract, to which the wife was not a party, and that, as appellant knew at the time he entered into the contract that the land was community property, he cannot now enforce the performance upon the part of the wife, and therefore he took nothing by such contract, and that the wife was not estopped from claiming or asserting that she had nothing whatever to do with the contract, because she was not a party to it.
It seems to us that there are two reasons why the wife, in this case, should be estopped, if the allegations of the complaint are true; for, while it is true that the agreement is set forth in the complaint, the other allegations of the complaint plainly show that the contract was actually made with both of the defendants. The second allegation recites that James C. Frandsen, in making said agreement, represented the community, and in all things wherein the community, or community interests, were affected, represented both his own and the community rights and interests, at the request, and by and with the full knowledge, acquiescence, consent, and ratification of said wife; that said agreement was made and entered into by the appellant, and by him fully performed carried out, and completed on his part, by and at the instance, request, and with the full consent of said defendant Elizabeth Frandsen, who assisted plaintiff in carrying out and performing said agreement upon his part, and in all things done thereunder by plaintiff she fully concurred and assented, and ratified every act in pursuance thereof, until long after plaintiff had completed his part of said agreement, and cleared all of said land. The third paragraph recites that plaintiff, in pursuance of said agreement, fully and faithfully performed all the work therein required, and did every act upon his part to be done and performed, and, within the time required, fully complied with and completed said agreement on his part, to the full satisfaction of the defendants, and thereafter,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Geoghegan v. Dever
... ... ratifies his act, neither she nor the community may ... thereafter disaffirm it. Konnerup v. Frandsen, 8 ... Wash. 551, 36 P. 493; O'Connor v. Jackson, 33 ... Wash. 219, 74 P. 372; Hay v. Chehalis Mill Co., 172 ... ...
-
Nichols Hills Bank v. McCool
...prevent a spouse from challenging a transaction when it has been previously authorized or ratified by him. See, e.g., Konnerup v. Frandsen, 8 Wash. 551, 36 P. 493 (1894); Benedict v. Hendrickson, 19 Wash.2d 452, 453, 143 P.2d 326 (1943). Because we have already engaged in an analysis of aut......
-
Stephens v. Nelson
...P.2d 939; In re Dewey's Estate, 13 Wash.2d 220, 124 P.2d 805; Jones v. Davis, 15 Wash.2d 567, 131 P.2d 433. In the case of Konnerup v. Frandsen, 8 Wash. 551, 36 P. 493, action brought for the purpose of procuring a decree directing specific performance of a contract for the sale of real est......
-
Whiting v. Johnson
...consents thereto or subsequently sanctions or ratifies his act, neither she nor the community may thereafter disaffirm it. Konnerup v. Frandsen, 8 Wash. 551, 36 P. 493; O'Connor v. Jackson, 33 Wash. 219, 74 P. 372; Washington State Bank of Ellensburg v. Dickson, 35 Wash. 641, 77 P. 1067; Ha......
-
§4.7 Management and Disposition of Community Realty
...516, 188 P.2d 130 (1947) (estoppel); In re Horse Heaven Irr. Dist., 19 Wn.2d 89, 141 P.2d 400 (1943) (ratification); Konnerup v. Frandsen, 8 Wash. 551, 36 P. 493 (1884) (authorization). In Whiting v. Johnson, for instance, the court The basic rule, long recognized and applied in this state,......
-
Table of Cases
...(1957): 3.2(1), 5.1(2) Komm v. Dept ofSocial & Health Servs., 23 Wn.App. 593, 597 P.2d 1372 (1979): 6.1(2), 6.5(6) Konnerup v.Frandsen, 8 Wash. 551, 36 P. 493 (1884): 4.7 Koontz v.Koontz, 83 Wash. 180, 145 P. 201 (1915): 5.1(1) Koshney, In reMarriage of, 139 Wn.App. 1026, No. 25233-7-III, 2......