Oudin v. Crossman
| Decision Date | 16 November 1896 |
| Citation | 46 P. 1047,15 Wash. 519 |
| Parties | OUDIN v. CROSSMAN ET UX. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Appeal from superior court, Spokane county; John McBride, Judge.
Action by C. P. Oudin against Charles Crossman and Mabel Crossman his wife, to recover money paid to defendants for the purchase of a mine. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Wm. T. Stoll, for appellants.
Plummer & Thayer, for respondent.
The plaintiff brought this suit to recover a sum money paid to the defendants for the purchase of a mine. The cause was tried without a jury, and the findings and judgment were in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendants have appealed.
The first error complained of is over the admission of certain testimony, and it is contended that some of the necessary findings of the court are totally unsupported except by the testimony in question. This testimony related to representations made by the defendants, or by Charles Crossman, the husband, regarding the existence and character of the mine in controversy, and as to the value of the ores therein contained. It is urged that the same is inadmissible on the ground that the representations were not specifically made to the plaintiff, but were made to other parties, or to the people in the vicinity generally. We think this testimony was admissible. It is evident that the purpose of the defendants was to sell the mine to any one that could be induced to purchase it, and that it was all one continuous scheme or transaction, and the plaintiff was not precluded from showing such representations made in furtherance of that purpose, although the same were not made to him personally.
It is further contended that the findings are not sustained by the evidence, and that, if they are, they do not support the judgment. Without entering upon a discussion in detail of the points urged under these heads, we think it sufficient to say that there was evidence tending to show that the mine in fact had no existence, the location being invalid, and that the ore exhibited as a sample did not come from the mine at all, and there was evidence to sustain the findings which the court made, and the facts found sustain the judgment entered.
It is next contended that the plaintiff was not entitled to a judgment against Mabel Crossman, on the ground that it was not a community liability. But the alleged title to the mine was in her...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ogden Valley Trout & Resort Co. v. Lewis
...is evidence that the two are parts of one scheme or plan of fraud committed in pursuance of a common purpose." The case of Oudin v. Crossman, 15 Wash. 519, 46 P. 1047, is one in which the Supreme Court of Washington applies rule applicable to the scheme or general plan to defraud where a sa......
-
Carnahan v. Moore
... ... Daub, as tending to support the respondent's contention ... that similar representations were made to him. Oudin v ... Crossman, 15 Wash. 519, 46 P. 1047 ... The ... judgment is affirmed ... MOUNT, ... C.J., and ... ...
-
May v. Roberts
... ... were parts of one and the same transaction. The ruling in ... this case is squarely baded on that in Oudin v ... Crossman, 15 Wash. 519, 46 P. 1047, where we said, ... concerning certain objectionable proof: ... 'This testimony related ... ...
-
Yakima Valley Bank v. McAllister
...a tendency to raise the presumption that the fraud charged was a part of the general scheme so proven. This court held in Oudin v. Crossman, 15 Wash. 519, 46 P. 1047, in an action to recover a sum of money which plaintiff had been induced to pay for the purchase of a mine in reliance upon f......
-
§3.2 Particular Assets
...P. 42 (1921); Miller v. Gerry, 81 Wash. 217, 142 P. 668 (1914); McGregor v. Johnson, 58 Wash. 78, 107 P. 1049 (1910); Oudin v. Crossman, 15 Wash. 519, 46 P. 1047 (1896). But cf. Bergman v. State, 187 Wash. 622, 60 P.2d 699 (1936) (cost judgment against husband who had been convicted of torc......
-
Table of Cases
...v. Kask, 151 Wn.App. 1052, No. 60990-4-I, 2009 WL 2595651 (Aug. 24,2009), review denied, 168 Wn.2d 1023 (2010): 6.2(7) Oudin v.Crossman, 15 Wash. 519, 46 P. 1047 (1896): 3.2(13), 4.4, 6.3(2)(a) Ovens v. Ovens,61 Wn.2d 6, 376 P.2d 839 (1962): 5.6(5) Ozolnieks-Burnellv. Burnell, No. 43931-6-I......
-
§6.3 Tort Liability
...torts. The following cases are illustrative: Community liability was found for fraud in the sale of a nonexistent mine, Oudin v. Crossman, 15 Wash. 519, 46 P. 1047 (1896); for fraudulent misrepresentations made by the husband in the sale of a community interest in real estate, Miller v. Ger......
-
§4.4 Standards of Management
...as an accommodation maker); Lloyd v. Mowery, 158 Wash. 341, 290 P. 710 (1930) (driving community car for recreation); Oudin v. Crossman, 15 Wash. 519, 46 P. 1047 (1896) (fraudulent procurement of money). Acceptance of community benefit does not render the nonacting spouse separately liable.......