Lawson v. King

Decision Date17 November 1909
Citation104 P. 1118,56 Wash. 15
PartiesLAWSON v. KING et ux.
CourtWashington Supreme Court

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; A. W. Frater Judge.

Action by C. E. Lawson against E. G. King and wife. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

S.D Wingate, for appellant.

Graves & Murphy and Charles H. Winders, for respondents.

MORRIS J.

Action for specific performance of contract for sale of real estate claimed to arise out of certain letters between the respondents and Vernon G. Patterson. The respondents resided at Hume, Ill., and Patterson, a relative, was engaged in the real estate business in connection with R. C. Erskine, at Seattle. The first letter, so far as it relates to the matter before us, is as follows: 'Hume, Ill., Aug. 20, 1906. Dear Vernon: * * * In regard to the property, Ed said he had raised the value of his property to five thousand and let you have six months' time to sell it in. Now Vernon I don't think that is much too high according to other property there. You know an abstract will cost quite a little, and your commission out of it would be a little more. We will hold for five thousand unless it would be almost a cash sale. * * * Yours sincerely, Bessie King.' The appellant contends that, after the receipt of this letter, he entered into a contract for the purchase of the property at $5,000, paying $100 down, and thereupon Patterson wrote respondents as follows: 'Seattle Washington, Aug. 30, 1906. Mr. E. G. King, Hume, Ill.--Dear Sir: We are glad to be able to report that we have secured a buyer for your lot 6, block 102, D. T. Denny's First addition to Seattle on the following terms: $2,500 cash and the balance in one year at 7 per cent., the property to be delivered clear of all taxes, assessments due to date, and other incumbrances excepting a first mortgage to be executed to you by the purchaser to secure the $2,500 deferred payment. We have received $100 as earnest money to bind the deal and the balance of the $2,500 cash payment is to be made within five days of delivery of an abstract showing good title. Please send your abstract that it may be brought down to date, and also forward the enclosed deed after it has been signed and acknowledged by yourself and wife before a notary public. These papers may be sent either to this office or to any bank in Seattle for collection. If the abstract is sent to a bank please instruct them to have it continued to date and delivered to us and to pay our commission (5 per cent.) when deal is closed. Thanking you for your business and trusting that our handling of it meets and will continue to merit your entire approval, Yours very truly, R. C. Erskine by Vernon G. Patterson. Dic. V. G. P.' Respondent's reply to this letter, leaving out immaterial matter, was as follows: 'Hume, Ill., Sept. 11th, 1906. ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Springer v. City Bank & Trust Co.
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • May 3, 1915
    ... ... Galloway, 148 Ind. 440, 47 N.E ... 818; Brandrup v. Britten, 11 N.D. 376, 92 N.W. 454; Milne v ... Kleb, 44 N.J.Eq. 378, 14 A. 646; Lawson v. King, 56 Wash. 15, ... 104 P. 1118; Grant v. Ede, 85 Cal. 418, 24 P. 890, 20 ... Am.St.Rep. 237; Scully v. Book, 3 Wash. 182, 28 P. 556; ... ...
  • Levy v. Yarbrough
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • November 25, 1913
    ...49 Wash. 446, 95 P. 1017; Hardinger v. Columbia, 50 Wash. 405, 97 P. 445; Hutchins v. Wertheimer, 51 Wash. 539, 99 P. 577; Lawson v. King, 56 Wash. 15, 104 P. 1118. 2. The petition does not aver facts sufficient to constitute a ratification so as to take the case out of the statute of fraud......
  • Levy v. Yarbrough
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • November 25, 1913
    ...49 Wash, 446, 95 P. 1017; Hardinger v. Columbia, 50 Wash. 405, 97 P. 445; Hutchins v. Wertheimer, 51 Wash. 539, 99 P. 577; Lawson v. King, 56 Wash. 15, 104 P. 1118. 2. petition does not aver facts sufficient to constitute a ratification so as to take the case out of the statute of frauds. I......
  • Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. of California v. Munson
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • March 24, 1921
    ... ... 403, 83 P. 313; Foss Investment ... Co. v. Ater, 49 Wash. 446, 95 P. 1017; Hardinger v ... Columbia, 50 Wash. 405, 97 P. 445; Lawson v ... King, 56 Wash. 15, 104 P. 1118 ... In view ... of the argument submitted by the appellants, it may be well ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT