Lee v. Northwest Trust & Sav. Bank

• Decision Date: 24 January 1924
• Docket Number: 18282.
• Citation: 128 Wash. 214,222 P. 489
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: LEE et al. v. NORTHWEST TRUST & SAVINGS BANK et al.

222 P. 489

128 Wash. 214

LEE et al. v. NORTHWEST TRUST & SAVINGS BANK et al.

No. 18282.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 24, 1924

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Tallman, Judge.

Action by R. H. Lee against the Northwest Trust & Savings Bank, to compel satisfaction of a mortgage and reconveyance of certain lots covered by a trust deed, and cross-complaint by the Bank to foreclose both the mortgage and trust deed. From a judgment for the cross-complainant, the plaintiff and certain additional defendants, made parties by the cross-complaint appeal. Affirmed.

John T Casey, of Seattle, for appellants.

John F Reed, of Seattle, for respondent.

MAIN C.J.

This action was brought seeking to require the defendant Northwest Trust & Savings Bank to satisfy a certain real estate mortgage and to reconvey certain lots covered by a trust deed, because it is claimed that the note secured by the mortgage and the debt for which the trust deed was given had been paid. In the complaint the Northwest Trust & Savings Bank, as the executor of the last will and testament of Irving T. Cole, deceased, was the only party named as defendant. The answer denied that the note had been paid, and also denied that the indebtedness secured by the trust deed had been paid, and by way of cross-complaint sought a judgment foreclosing both the mortgage and the trust deed. By the cross-complaint the signers of the note, mortgage and trust deed were all made additional parties defendant and by order of the court brought into the action. The cause was tried to the court without a jury, and resulted in a judgment in favor of the defendant and cross-complainant in the sum of $1,040.67, with attorney's fee and costs, and directed that the mortgage and the trust deed be foreclosed. From this judgment the plaintiff and the additional defendants made parties by the cross-complaint, and who signed the obligations upon which the judgment was based, appeal.

The principal question is whether the indebtedness had been paid and this is a question of fact. The trial court found that it had not been paid, and entered a judgment accordingly. The evidence on the part of the appellants, by which they sought to establish payment, was the testimony of D. H. Lee and certain documentary evidence. When Lee was offered as a witness his testimony was objected to because he was a party in interest and to record. When this objection was made, the attorney for D. H. Lee disclaimed all interest in the case so far as he was concerned, and stated that Lee was testifying for the other parties, not for himself. This witness was one of the parties signing the note, the mortgage, and the trust deed. He was brought into the action with the other additional defendants by the cross-complaint. He is now one of the appellants from the judgment entered by the...