McMillen v. Bancroft, 22773.
Decision Date | 21 April 1931 |
Docket Number | 22773. |
Citation | 162 Wash. 175,298 P. 460 |
Parties | McMILLEN et al. v. BANCROFT et al. |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2.
Appeal from Superior Court, Snohomish County; Guy C. Alston, Judge.
Action by T. F. McMillen and another against Ellis Bancroft and others. From the judgment, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
F. W Mansfield and W. P. Bell, both of Everett, for appellants.
S. M Bruce, of Bellingham, and Robert Mulvihill, of Everett, for respondents.
Plaintiffs seek by this action to recover $2,000 paid to defendants on a certain contract, and to recover damages claimed to have resulted from defendants' fraudulent representations which it is alleged induced the plaintiffs to enter into the contract with the defendants. The cause was tried to the court which found that defendants made no false representations inducing the execution of the contract; that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover $2,000, paid by them on the contract, less the value of the timber removed by the plaintiffs at the price specified in the contract; that the plaintiffs abandoned the contract, and that the defendants acquiesced in that abandonment and subsequently disposed of the remaining property to third persons. Judgment was entered accordingly. The defendants have appealed.
On November 24, 1925, the parties herein entered into a written contract reading as follows:
Coincident with the execution of the contract, the respondents paid to the appellants $500, and thereafter paid $1,500 additional. Respondents took possession of the premises, erected a logging camp, and proceeded to log the land. The timber removed consisted of poles, piling, and logs. In January, 1927, the respondents ceased logging operations on the land as they were not permitted to transport their logs over the county roads, and they had no other method of removing the timber from the land. In the spring of 1927, the appellants sold the remaining timber, poles, and piles on the land to other parties who removed the timber.
Appellants contend that the $2,000 paid by respondents was for the purchase of the trucks, boom sticks, and chains referred to in the contract; that the amount paid was solely for the purchase of the personal property mentioned. It clearly appears from the evidence that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rider v. Cottle
... ... money paid. (3) Connelly v. Malloy, 106 Wash. 464, ... 180 P. 469, and McMillen v. Bancroft, 162 Wash. 175, ... 298 P. 460, are cases dealing with contracts having no ... ...
-
Petty & Riddle, Inc. v. Lunt
... ... To the ... same effect where the contract was mutually abandoned, see ... McMillen v. Bancroft, 162 Wash. 175, 298 P ... The ... Supreme Court of Washington in construing ... ...
-
Morango v. Phillips
... ... 451, p ... 1031, and cases cited in the notes to the text; McMillen ... v. Bancroft, 162 Wash. 175, 298 P. 460; Russell v ... Stephens, 191 Wash. 314, 71 ... ...
-
Wiegardt v. Becken
... ... 601, § 624, cited in McMillen v. Bancroft, 162 Wash ... 175, 298 P. 460, 462, is applicable here: ... "A ... ...