Lew Choy v. Jim Sing

• Decision Date: 20 July 1923
• Docket Number: 17842.
• Citation: 216 P. 888,125 Wash. 631
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: LEW CHOY v. JIM SING.

216 P. 888

125 Wash. 631

LEW CHOY v. JIM SING.

No. 17842.

Supreme Court of Washington

July 20, 1923

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Otis W. Brinker, Judge.

Action by Lew Choy against Jim Sing. Judgment for the plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Bogle, Merritt & Bogle, of Seattle, for appellant.

Kaw Gregory & Sutton, of Seattle, for respondent.

BRIDGES J.

The plaintiff sued upon an instrument written in the Chinese language, a literal translation of which is as follows:

'1918 Naknek Cannery--I owe Charlie Sam $823.35; 1920 Newskate Cannery--I owe Charlie Sam $1,810.90; total amount $2,634.25. Signed May 10, 1921, by Jim Sing, 200 3d Ave South, Seattle, Wash.'

The complaint alleged that the instrument had been duly assigned to her, and that she was the owner thereof, and no part of the amount called for had been paid, and all was past due. The answer admitted the correctness of the translation, but denied that the defendant had signed the instrument, or owed any money to the plaintiff. If further alleged that plaintiff's assignor and the defendant had been in partnership in a certain business, and that on account thereof the plaintiff's assignor was indebted to the defendant in a considerable sum.

The testimony showed that Charlie Sam, so-called, was the husband of the plaintiff, and that the former had, in writing, duly assigned to the latter the instrument which we have quoted. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant has appealed.

Appellant objected to the introduction of any testimony because the plaintiff's husband Charlie Sam, was a necessary party to the action. This objection being overruled, the appellant moved that the trial be continued and that the respondent be required to bring her husband into the action. This motion was also denied. It being proved that the respondent was the holder by due assignment of the instrument sued upon, her husband was not a necessary party to the action because it became her separate property, or, at least, vested in her power of collection. There is nothing in our community property statutes which would require us to hold otherwise.

It appears that at the time of one of the adjournments during the trial one of the respondent's witnesses was under an uncompleted cross-examination by the attorney for the appellant. This witness had, among other things, given a translation into English of the instrument sued upon. He failed to appear for further cross-examination, and the appellant moved to strike all of his testimony. The court struck all except that with reference to the translation of the instrument. The court might have justly concluded that there had been sufficient cross-examination concerning the translation, and, if so, he would have been justified in refusing to strike that much of the testimony. In any event there was no error, because the appellant in his answer and elsewhere admitted that the...