Lawrence v. Halversen

• Decision Date: 31 January 1906
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: LAWRENCE v. HALVERSEN.

83 P. 889

41 Wash. 534

LAWRENCE v. HALVERSEN.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 31, 1906

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Arthur E. Griffin, Judge.

Action by John Lawrence against Alexia Halversen. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Modified.

Saulsberry & Stuart, for appellant.

S.D Wingate, for respondent.

DUNBAR J.

The complaint alleged, substantially, that the plaintiff was a contractor and builder in the city of Seattle; that in the month of March, 1903, an oral contract of copartnership was entered into between the plaintiff and defendant, by the terms of which contract it was agreed that the copartners should purchase a certain lot described in the complaint; that plaintiff should improve such lot by grading it and erecting thereon a house, the plaintiff to perform the work and the defendant to furnish such sums as should thereafter be agreed upon between the parties, and that said house and lot should be owned by the plaintiff and defendant as copartners; that, in pursuance of said contract, the plaintiff entered into a contract for the purchase of the aforesaid lot, paid $30 on account, and in consideration thereof, and that on the 11th day of April, 1903, said contract of purchase was consummated by the execution of a deed for the conveyance of the aforesaid lot to defendant upon the payment by the defendant of the sum of $695, being the balance due on account of the consideration money; that it was orally agreed by and between the plaintiff and the defendant, immediately after the execution of the deed to the defendant, that the plaintiff, as a part of his share to be contributed toward the partnership, should grade the lot and excavate for and put in a cement foundation upon which to erect the house, and that such grading was done and the foundation made; that it was afterwards further agreed that a certain double flat building should be erected to cost about $2,800, of which amount the defendant should furnish $1,000 upon the demand of the plaintiff as the work progressed, and the plaintiff should furnish the plans, together with lumber material, labor, etc.; that in accordance with the said agreement the work of erecting the building was begun and progressed, with certain changes mutually agreed upon; that the plaintiff had carried out his part of the partnership agreement in erecting the said building; that the defendant had expressed herself as well satisfied with the work; that on January 5, 1905, the defendant took possession of the building and lot, claiming absolute title and ownership therein, has had possession since, refused to account to plaintiff for his interest or profits in the property, and denied any right or interest of the said plaintiff in the property, and refused to settle up in any manner whatever, or to convey to the plaintiff his undivided one-half interest in said property. The prayer is for the dissolution of the partnership; that the defendant be required to pay to plaintiff the amount which shall be found due him on account of the use and occupation of the said building and lot; that the defendant be directed and required to pay to the plaintiff an amount equal to one-half of the costs of the improvements, and be directed and required to grant and convey one equal undivided one-half interest in and to the land in dispute. A demurrer was interposed to the amended complaint. The record does not show what disposition was made of it, but presumably it was denied, as the defendant interposed an answer to the amended complaint. The answer is, in effect, a general denial of all the essential allegations of the complaint. The defendant denied that she took possession of the property on January 5, 1905, but said that she had continuous possession of the property since she bought the same in 1903; she having admitted that she had bought the same and paid for it herself--in short, denied any right or interest of the plaintiff in or to said property, admitted that no accounting was made, but denied that she was under any obligation to make any accounting, and alleged that the plaintiff had no interest, right, or title in one undivided one-half, or any other interest, in said house and lot. Upon the trial by the court the facts were found substantially as alleged in the complaint, with the addition of the fact that, on the question of the accounting, $631 was due the defendant from the plaintiff by reason of the amount furnished by each and of the paying of the taxes and of the bills paid generally in the prosecution of the work, and the judgment was that the plaintiff, upon the payment of the sum of $631 to the defendant, was entitled to a decree declaring, adjudging, and decreeing him the owner of an equal undivided one-half interest in and to all that certain tract of land described in the complaint, free from any and all incumbrances. From this judgment this appeal is taken.

An examination of this record shows conclusively to our minds that the court was warranted in making the findings of fact which it did make. The defendant at first, in harmony with her answer, denied any interest of the plaintiff in the land testified that no partnership agreement had ever...