Osawa v. Onishi

• Citation: 33 Wn.2d 546,206 P.2d 498
• Decision Date: 19 May 1949
• Docket Number: 30704.
• Parties: OSAWA et al. v. ONISHI et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Washington

206 P.2d 498

33 Wn.2d 546

OSAWA et al. v. ONISHI et al.

No. 30704.

Supreme Court of Washington

May 19, 1949

Department 2

Interpleader action by Shigeru Osawa and others against Charles Onishi and Frieda Onishi, his wife, Golden Land Investment Company, a Washington corporation, William Chong, D. J. MacGillivray Jr., and J. T. Halin to determine the rights of the various defendants to a balance due on two real estate contracts and deposited in court. Action by the Golden Land Investment Company against Charles Onishi and Frieda Onishi on two notes wherein plaintiffs in the interpleader action had appeared as garnishee defendants. From an adverse judgment in the interpleader action, J. T. Halin appeals.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded with instructions.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; J. T Ronald, Judge.

John D MacGillivray and Lawrence H. Brown, Spokane, for appellant.

Koenigsberg & Sanford, Seattle, for Golden Land Investment Co.

E. K. Marohn, Kirkland, for other respondents.

JEFFERS Chief Justice.

In order that an understanding may be had of the situation existing at the time garnishment proceedings were instituted and the interpleader action commenced, which resulted in the judgment being entered from which this appeal was taken, we shall briefly state the proceedings which led up to and formed the basis of the garnishments.

On August 28, 1946, Golden Land Investment Company, a corporation, instituted an action against Charles Onishi and Frieda Onishi, his wife, in the superior court for King county, on two promissory notes, one executed February 26, 1943, for twenty-five hundred dollars, due August 26, 1943, and one executed in October, 1943, for twelve hundred fifty dollars, due April 23, 1944. On September 16, 1946, William Chong instituted an action against the Onishis, in the superior court for King county, seeking recovery on an installment note for nine thousand dollars, executed May 24, 1946, with balance due February 24, 1947.

In both of the actions above referred to, garnishments were issued, directed to Shigeru Osawa, Yoneko Funamori and Seizi Funamori, her husband, and Ted Takahashi, as garnishee defendants. The writs were issued and served in the Golden Land Investment Company case first. In each case the garnishee defendants answered that they had previously been indebted to Onishi in the sum of $17,203.25, which represented the balance due on two real estate contracts covering the purchase of the Empire and Globe hotels, in Spokane, Washington; that the contracts had been, by instruments dated March 8, §946, sold, assigned and transferred by Onishi to D. J. MacGillivray, Jr. and J. T. Halin; and that the garnishee defendants, when served with the writs of garnishment, were not nor have they since become, indebted to Onishi.

The answer in each case was controverted. This action in interpleader was then commenced by the garnishee defendants as plaintiffs, against Charles Onishi and wife, Golden Land Investment Company, a corporation, William Chong, D. J. MacGillivray, Jr. and J. T. Halin, as defendants.

The balance due on the two real estate contracts above referred to, including interest, in the sum of $18,531.65 was deposited by the plaintiffs with the clerk of the court, and plaintiffs asked that the court determine the rights, claims and interests of the defendants in and to such deposit.

This interpleader action was consolidated with the action of Golden Land Investment Company against Onishi for trial, and the actions were tried Before Honorable J. T. Ronald, one of the judges of the superior court for King county. Onishi defaulted in the action instituted by Golden Land Investment Company against him, and after proof taken, the court found that Onishi was indebted to such company on the notes sued on. In the interpleader action the court, on April 9, 1948, made and entered findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment. From the judgment entered, which was favorable to Golden Land Investment Company, defendant J. T. Halin alone has appealed.

Neither the findings of fact nor the conclusions of law make any reference to defendant William Chong, other than in the introductory statement, which is to the effect that such defendant appeared in person and by his attorney, E. K. Marohn. The judgment entered makes no reference to William Chong nor to any claim of such defendant, but only purports to settle the issues as between appellant Halin and respondent Golden Land Investment Company. The record contains no cross-appeal by defendant Chong, nor has he filed any briefs herein.

Appellant makes sixteen assignments of error, which are in entering findings of fact Nos. 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16; in entering conclusions of law Nos. 1, 2 and 3; in awarding the interpleader plaintiffs an attorney's fee of five hundred dollars, to be satisfied from the funds on deposit with the clerk; in denying appellant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the oral decision of the court; and in entering the judgment of April 9, 1946, from which this appeal is taken.

It is the general contention of appellant that the findings of fact made and entered by the trial court are not supported by the evidence; that this is in fact an action to set aside a conveyance of an interest in realty, and is therefore an equitable action; that this being so, findings of fact made by the court are not binding to the same extent that they are in a law action, citing Eckley v. Bonded Adjustment Co., Wash., 190 P.2d 718, 1 A.L.R.2d 717.

We recognize the rules above stated relative to findings of fact in equity cases, and we set out more in detail certain principles which we have announced and followed relative to findings of fact made in such cases. We quote from Columbia Lumber Co. v. Bush, 13 Wash.2d 657, 666, 126 P.2d 584, 588:

'The rule may be restated as follows: Findings of fact are not required in equity cases, but if they are made by the trial court they will be considered and given great weight if the statement of facts is included in the record Before us.

'Equity cases are tried de novo in this court. In so considering the case it is our duty to make an independent examination of all of the evidence and all of the circumstances surrounding the various parties to the action as disclosed by the statement of facts, and from that examination decide what findings should have been made.

'If the determination of the cause depends upon testimony which is in serious conflict, or upon evenly balanced evidence, this court will not disturb the findings of the trial court unless other factors are present which compel us to reach a contrary conclusion. However, if this court ascertains from the entire record that the findings are not supported by a fair preponderance of the evidence, they will be disregarded.'

See, also, Rapp v. Ellis, 14 Wash.2d 659, 663, 129 P.2d 545; Widman v. Maurer, 19 Wash.2d 28, 141 P.2d 135; Wingard v. Pierce County, 23 Wash.2d 296, 300, 160 P.2d 1009.

We have examined the evidence introduced in this action, and after such examination we have concluded that the findings of fact, with some exceptions, as made and entered by the court are supported by a fair preponderance of the evidence. In reaching this conclusion, we are mindful of the fact that this action sounds in fraud. Having concluded as above indicated, we do not deem it necessary to discuss or refer to the evidence other than as may appear hereinafter in this opinion, and we adopt the following findings of fact as the material facts in this case:

'III. That the sum of $18,531.65 has been deposited with the clerk of this court by the plaintiffs herein, to be paid out as the court may direct.

'IV. That the defendant Golden Land Investment Company claims an interest in said funds by virtue of writs of garnishment issued in King county superior court cause No. 376584 and served on plaintiffs herein; that defendant Golden Land Investment Company's claim is for the sum of $2500.00, together with interest thereon at 6 per cent per annum from August 26, 1943, and for the further sum of $1250.00, together with interest thereon at 6 per cent per annum from April 19, 1944; that said sums are due the Golden Land Investment Company from Charles and Frieda Onishi; that the Golden Land Investment Company garnisheed the plaintiffs herein as debtors of said Charles and Frieda Onishi.

'V. That defendants D. J. MacGillivray, Jr. and J. T. Halin claim they are entitled to the whole of said funds by virtue of assignments dated March 8, 1946 from Charles and Frieda Onishi, transferring to them the indebtedness due from the plaintiffs herein.

'VI. That by said assignments, an indebtedness in the principal sum of $17,203.25, together with interest thereon at the rate of 4 1/2 per cent per annum from November 5, 1945 was transferred for a consideration not in excess of $11,800.00.

'VII. That the indebtedness of the plaintiffs herein arose out of a sale to them by Charles and Frieda Onishi of all the sellers' interest in the Globe and Empire Hotels in Spokane, Washington, by contracts dated November 5, 1945.

'VIII. That Charles and Frieda Onishi, between November 5, 1945 and March 8, 1946, received from plaintiffs herein as part payment for said sale the sum of $33,000.00, out of which after certain deductions were made, they received approximately $25,000 in cash, none of which was used to satisfy their creditors; that, in addition, Charles and Frieda Onishi failed to apply to the debt due from them to the Golden Land Investment Company, any of the $11,800.00 received by them from D. J. MacGillivray, Jr. and J. T. Halin as consideration for the assignments of their claim against the plaintiffs herein, although...