Manning v. Foster

• Citation: 49 Wash. 541,96 P. 233
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Washington
• Decision Date: 03 June 1908
• Parties: MANNING v. FOSTER et ux.

96 P. 233

49 Wash. 541

MANNING v. FOSTER et ux.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 3, 1908

Appeal from Superior Court, Lewis County; A. E. Rice, Judge.

Action by Frank A. Manning against Henry Foster and wife. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Troy &amp Falknor, for appellant.

Reynolds & Stewart, for respondents.

ROOT J.

This was an action to enforce specific performance of an alleged escrow agreement. On the 18th of December, 1905, the defendant Henry Foster executed a deed for the land in question, at a consideration of $4,500, and by agreement with plaintiff placed said deed in escrow with certain bankers in Chehalis. With the deed there was deposited cash in the sum of $2,854.63, a promissory note for $500, and certain warrants amounting to $1,145.37, a total of $4,500. It was understood that the wife of defendant was to come and sign and acknowledge the deed, and that the warrants were to be indorsed by one J. R. Welty. When Mrs. Foster should sign the deed and the warrants should be indorsed by Mr. Welty, the deed was to be delivered to the appellant, and the money, note, and warrants were to be turned over to respondents. The deposit of these instruments and money was accompanied with a memorandum as follows:

Deposited with Coffman Dobson & Co., Bankers, Chehalis Washington.

Special Deposit.

By Henry Foster, December 18, 1905.

Patent & Warranty Deed for deliver (when signed) to Frank A Manning on payment of Cash $2,854 63

Note 500 00

3 R & B Warrants No. 2611, 2610, & 2609 1,145 37

Total $4,500 00

J. W. A.

Some days after the deposit, Mrs. Foster called and signed and acknowledged the deed. Mr. Welty, being a state official with office at Olympia, was seldom in Chehalis, but was expected to be there some time during the Christmas holiday season. He came on Christmas but, the bank not being open, was unable to sign the warrants at that time, and returned to Olympia without doing so. A few days afterwards, without the consent of appellant, the respondent Henry Foster withdrew the deed from said bankers. Shortly thereafter said Welty indorsed said warrants, and the appellant demanded of respondents the delivery of the deed. They refused to deliver the deed; whereupon this action was commenced. Upon the trial the facts as hereinbefore set forth were established by the evidence of appellant. Thereupon a motion for nonsuit was made by respondents, and the same sustained by the trial court. From a judgment of dismissal this appeal is prosecuted.

We are unable to reach the conclusion announced by the honorable trial court. It is urged that this was community property, and that there was no evidence that Mrs. Foster had any knowledge or information of the agreement between the plaintiff and Henry Foster, her husband. The fact that she came to the bank and signed and acknowledged the deed, after it had been left there pursuant to the agreement between her husband and appellant, would seem to be satisfactory evidence that she understood and was assisting to carry out the agreement.

It is urged that there was no valid or written contract by the defendants, or either of them, to convey the lands, and that there was no sufficient memorandum to satisfy the statute of frauds. In the case of Nichols v. Oppermann, 6 Wash 618, 34 P. 162, this court said: 'The condition upon which a deed is delivered in escrow may rest in and be proved by parol.' In Bronx Inv. Co. v. National Bank of Commerce, 92 P. 380, this court held that an escrow agreement need not be in writing. At page 586, 16 Cyc., it is said: 'Parol evidence is permissible to prove the condition upon which the instrument is deposited.' In the case of Gaston v. City of Portland, 16 Or. 261, 19 P. 131, the court said: 'Nor is it necessary that the condition upon which the deed is delivered in escrow be expressed in writing; it may rest in parol, or be partly in writing and in part oral. The rule that a contract in writing inter partes must be deemed to contain the entire agreement or understanding has no application in such case.' In 11 Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law (2d Ed.) 334, it is said: 'It may be stated as a general rule that no particular form of words is necessary to constitute an escrow.' In Cannon v. Handley, 72 Cal. 133, 13 P. 315, the court spoke as follows: 'But it is said there was nothing in writing authorizing Cox to hold or deliver the deed. There is nothing in the statute which requires this to be in writing. The statute only requires a note or memorandum in writing as evidence of the contract. Nothing in it has reference to any arrangement for the delivery of the deed in...