Loutsis v. Georges
| Decision Date | 23 February 1940 |
| Docket Number | 27839. |
| Citation | 3 Wn.2d 1,99 P.2d 413 |
| Parties | LOUTSIS et ux. v. GEORGES. GEORGES et ux. v. LOUTIS et ux. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2.
Action for restitution of certain premises by Louis Loutsis and wife against George Georges, also known as George Harclaon consolidated for trial with action for an accounting by George Georges, also known as George Harclaon, and George Harclaon Georges and wife against Louis Loutis, whose true name is Louis Loutsis, and wife. From an adverse judgment George Georges and wife appeal.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Chester A. Batchelor Judge.
Ralph A. Horr, Philip Tworoger, and Albert M Franco, all of Seattle, for appellants.
Chavelle & Chavelle, of Seattle, for respondents.
George Georges and wife commenced, in the superior court for King county, an action for an accounting, being cause No. 310484, against Louis Loutis (whose true name is Louis Loutsis), alleging that, pursuant to an oral contract, defendant, in consideration of a loan of two thousand dollars to plaintiffs, took an assignment of a contract to purchase a certain piece of Seattle property, which assignment was to be held by defendant as security for the loan; that in violation of such oral contract, and after plaintiffs had made payments on the loan, defendant took title to the property in his own name. Plaintiffs asked that the exact amount of money owing from plaintiffs to defendant be determined, and that defendant be directed to execute a deed, to be placed in the registry of the court, to be delivered to plaintiffs upon payment of the sum found to be due defendant.
Defendant, by his answer, denied that plaintiffs were entitled to any relief under their complaint, and asked that title to the property in question be confirmed in him, and that defendant recover rent claimed to be due from plaintiffs.
Shortly after the above-entitled action was commenced, Louis Loutsis, defendant in cause No. 310484, and Antonina Loutsis, his wife, commenced an action against George Georges, being cause No. 312331 of the records of the superior court for King county, wherein plaintiffs asked for restitution of the premises described in cause No. 310484, which plaintiffs alleged defendant was holding under lease, further alleging that defendant had failed to pay rent and refused to vacate the premises.
Defendant, in his answer, denied that the relation of landlord and tenant existed, and by reference made a part of his answer his complaint in cause No. 310484.
On April 12, 1939, the attorneys for the respective parties in the two actions above mentioned stipulated that the actions be consolidated and tried on May 18, 1939. A trial was had, and thereafter the court made and entered findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment.
In the judgment as entered, the trial court dismissed the action started by George Georges, being No. 310484, and further decreed that Louis Loutsis and wife were the owners of the property in question; that they were entitled to a writ of restitution; and that all right, title and interest of George Georges and wife in and to the property be canceled and forfeited. Motion for new trial was made by George Georges, and denied by the court. This appeal followed.
Appellant contends the court erred in refusing to declare the transaction in question a mortgage, and in holding that respondents were to hold the property free of claims by appellant.
Respondents have interposed a motion to strike appellant's bill of exceptions, dismiss the appeal, and affirm the judgment. The motion is based on the following grounds: (1) That appellant's proposed bill of exceptions, as evidenced by the trial court's certificate, does not contain all material facts, matters and proceedings occurring in the cause; (2) that appellant has failed to serve and file a concise statement of points upon which he intends to rely upon appeal.
Rem.Rev.Stat. § 391, sets forth certain requirements relative to a certificate to a bill of exceptions or statement of facts. The proposed bill of exceptions, consisting of two and one-half pages, refers in no manner to any of the exhibits in the case. Attached to the bill of exceptions is the following certificate:
Under a certificate such as made in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rosencrans v. Purrier
...of Rule IX(2), the advisibility of its observance, and the difficulties attendant upon failure to comply with it.' In Loutsis v. Georges, 3 Wash.2d 1, 99 P.2d 413, 415, the question as to the force and effect of Rule IX(2) squarely raised and the statement of facts in that case was stricken......
-
In re Anderson's Estate
... ... intends to rely, in an appeal perfected under rule 9(2), is ... jurisdictional and mandatory. Loutsis v. Georges, 3 ... Wash.2d 1, 99 P.2d 413; Rosencrans v. Purrier, 15 ... Wash.2d[33 Wn.2d 228] 558, 131 P.2d 442; Falk v ... ...
-
Falk v. Stienback
...attendant upon failure to comply with it,' in connection with appeals upon an abbreviated statement of facts. In Loutsis v. Georges, 3 Wash.2d 1, 99 P.2d 413, 415, an abbreviated statement of facts was stricken, because appellant's failure to file a statement of points calling attention to ......
- Queen City Const. Co. v. City of Seattle