Mallicott v. Nelson, 33485
| Decision Date | 07 February 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 33485,33485 |
| Citation | 293 P.2d 404,48 Wn.2d 273 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | Ray L. MALLICOTT, Respondent, v. Mary NELSON, Administratrix of the Estate of Oliver Wright Harris, Appellant. |
Garver & Garver, Camas, for appellant.
G. E. Lovell, Stevenson, for respondent.
The principal question presented in this case is whether the action, which is based on a claim timely filed in the administration of the estate of O. W. Harris, deceased, was prematurely commenced. Appellant contends that she, as administratrix of the estate, had not yet rejected the claim when the action was instituted. This is the basis of the first assignment of error.
The other assignments challenge findings of fact Nos. 3 to 8, inclusive, the conclusion of law predicated thereon, and the entry of judgment establishing respondent's claim as a general claim against the estate in the sum of $953.65 plus interest, attorney's fees, and costs.
The findings referred to are not set forth in appellant's brief as required by Rule 43 of Rules on Appeal, 34A Wash.2d 47, as amended, effective January 2, 1953. Therefore, the challenged findings must be accepted as verities. Paulson v. Higgins, 43 Wash.2d 81, 260 P.2d 318, 266 P.2d 800, and cases cited therein.
Reverting to the first error assigned, to wit, that the action was prematurely instituted because the claim had not yet been rejected by the administratrix, the material facts as found by the trial court are substantially as follows:
June 2, 1952--deceased executed and delivered to respondent his promissory note in the sum of $3,250, bearing interest at the rate of seven percent per annum. This note is past due.
June 12, 1953, (August 10, 1953, is the correct date)--respondent duly filed his claim with the administratrix in the amount of $2,031.48 plus interest, being the amount then due on the promissory note above referred to.
June 14, 1954--administratrix' attorney wrote respondent's attorney as follows:
June 28, 1954--respondent filed his complaint in this action.
The remaining findings relate to debits and credits arising as the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zmijewski v. Wright
...was for the protection of the claimant; * * *." Id. See Marquam v. Ellis, 27 Wash.App. 913, 621 P.2d 190 (1980) and Mallicott v. Nelson, 48 Wash.2d 273, 293 P.2d 404 (1956). Consistent with the holding and rationale of Hanson, we hold that the failure to fulfill the requirements of W.S. 2-7......
-
Johnston v. Von Houck
...properly reject the creditor's claim by personal service or registered mail before the creditor sued the estate. Mallicott v. Nelson, 48 Wash.2d 273, 274, 293 P.2d 404 (1956). The estate then moved for dismissal, arguing that the suit was prematurely filed. The Supreme Court held that a let......
-
In the Matter of Estate of Jensen, No. 55764-5-I (Wash. App. 5/30/2006), 55764-5-I.
...a notice of rejection must be given are for the protection of the claimant.' Marquam, 27 Wn. App. at 915 (citing Mallicott v. Nelson, 48 Wn.2d 273, 293 P.2d 404 (1956)). The court held that the `statute is clear and precise' and that `notice of rejection by personal service or by certified ......
-
Grasser v. Blakkolb, 916--III
...service of such notice upon the attorney may preclude the administrator from claiming lack of such rejection, Mallicott v. Nelson, 48 Wash.2d 273, 275, 293 P.2d 404 (1956), an administrator is not required to serve claimant's Furthermore, as set forth in Robel v. Highline Public School Dist......