McKenzie v. Puget Sound Nat. Bank

• Decision Date: 26 July 1894
• Citation: 9 Wash. 442,37 P. 668
• Parties: MCKENZIE v. PUGET SOUND NAT. BANK OF SEATTLE.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

37 P. 668

9 Wash. 442

MCKENZIE v. PUGET SOUND NAT. BANK OF SEATTLE.

Supreme Court of Washington

July 26, 1894

Appeal from superior court, King county; R. Osborn, Judge.

Action by D. A. McKenzie against the Puget Sound National Bank of Seattle. There was a judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Strudwick & Peters, for appellant.

Carr &amp Preston and W. R. Bell, for respondent.

SCOTT, J.

The material allegations of the complaint in this case are that on the 1st day of August, 1890, one Almond was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $1,425, and that said Almond, doing business under the name of Almond &amp Phillips Foundry Company, was indebted to defendant in the sum of $14,000, and that said Almond was then the owner and in possession of a certain leasehold interest in and to certain premises described, and was the owner of a certain foundry and machine-shop plant, of the value of $30,000. The fifth and sixth paragraphs of the complaint are as follows: "(5) That on the 21st day of August, 1890, the said Charles H. Almond, doing business as aforesaid, conveyed to one Jacob Furth, the cashier and manager of the defendant, for the use and benefit of defendant, all of said plant, property, stock on hand, lease and accounts; and the defendant accepted the same, and went into the possession thereof, through one G. L. Faust, who became and was appointed by defendant its general agent and manager in that behalf. (6) That said defendant took and accepted said conveyance and assignment, and entered into the possession of said property, with a view and intention of paying off and discharging all the debts of said C. H. Almond, for the purpose of subserving and promoting its own pecuniary and business interests; and said defendant proposed, for the purpose aforesaid, to the plaintiff and others of the creditors of said C. H. Almond, that if said creditors would forbear the collection of their said debts against said C. H. Almond, and would accept payment thereof from defendant in deferred installments, that defendant would pay off and discharge said debts; and plaintiff and others of said creditors of said C. H. Almond accepted said proposition of defendant, and forebore the collection of their said debts." The court sustained a demurrer to the complaint, and plaintiff appealed.

We are of the opinion that the demurrer was well taken, on the ground that the promise alleged was void under the statute of frauds, it being conceded that it was not in writing. A...