Mychel Co. v. Lashua

• Citation: 213 P. 917,124 Wash. 163
• Decision Date: 22 March 1923
• Docket Number: 17618.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Washington
• Parties: MYCHEL CO. v. LASHUA.

213 P. 917

124 Wash. 163

MYCHEL CO. v. LASHUA.

No. 17618.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 22, 1923

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, Snohomish County; Guy C. Alston, Judge.

Action by the Mychel Company against James Lashua, administrator of the estate of Percy Gardiner, deceased. From an order impressing a trust upon proceeds of a certain sale, and requiring defendant to pay such funds to plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

G. D Eveland, of Everett, and Kerr, McCord & Ivey, of Seattle, for appellant.

D. W Locke, of Everett, for respondent.

MACKINTOSH J.

In the case of Mychel v. Gardiner, 117 Wash. 704, 202 P 1119, this court sustained the judgment of the superior court of Snohomish county, which determined that the defendant Gardiner was holding certain mining claims in trust for the plaintiff, Mychel Company. Before the remittitur had gone down, and in violation of the injunction, Gardiner transferred the claims, and rendered it impossible for him to comply with the decree of the court that he transfer the claims to the plaintiff. Thereafter an application was made in the same action for an order impressing the trust upon the proceeds of the sale of the claims, and ordering the administrator of Gardiner's estate to pay such funds to the plaintiff in lieu of the conveyances provided for in the original decree, Gardiner in the meantime having died. Upon the hearing, such an order was made, from which this appeal is taken.

The appeal raises two questions:

First, it is the contention of the appellant that the court was in error in permitting the introduction in evidence of Exhibit A, which is the certified copy of the deed of the mining claims from Gardiner. The claims were located in the province of British Columbia, and Exhibit A is a copy of the deed certified by the registrar of titles of the land registry office at Nelson, B. C., as being a true copy of the conveyance deposited in his office. The deed bears no acknowledgment. Under the laws of this state (Rem. Code, § 8746), an acknowledgment is necessary for the transfer of real estate. Section 1260 provides for the certification of copies of deeds which have been recorded. It may be admitted that, under the law of this state, had the property been located in this state, Exhibit A would have been inadmissible in evidence. No attempt was made to plead or prove the laws of British Columbia, and it is the claim of the appellant that, in the absence of any proof as to the necessity of an acknowledgment in that province, the laws there must be presumed to be the same as they are here, and that the copy of the deed must be held to be inadmissible. The argument is made that, in the absence of proof of the statutory law of a foreign jurisdiction, that law will be presumed to be the same as that of this jurisdiction and the cases of Gunderson v. Gunderson, 25 Wash. 459, 65 P. 791; Pitt v. Little, 58 Wash. 355, 108 P. 941; Sheppard v. Coeur d'Alene Lumber Co., 62 Wash 12, 112 P. 932, 44 L. R. A. (N. S.) 267, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 909; Marston v. Rue, 92 Wash. 129, 159 P. 111; Freyman v. Day, 108 Wash. 71, 182 P. 940; and Williams v. Great Northern Ry., 108 Wash. 344, 184 P. 340--are cited as having committed this court to that doctrine. It is argued, on the other hand, by the respondent that the only presumption, in the absence of proof of the laws of a foreign jurisdiction, is that the common law of the foreign jurisdiction is the same as that of this jurisdiction, but that the presumption does not extend to the statutory law.

...