Pacific Mercantile Agency, Inc. v. First Nat. Bank

• Decision Date: 08 August 1936
• Docket Number: 26117.
• Citation: Pacific Mercantile Agency, Inc. v. First Nat. Bank, 60 P.2d 6, 187 Wash. 149 (Wash. 1936)
• Parties: PACIFIC MERCANTILE AGENCY, Inc., v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF FERNDALE.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

60 P.2d 6

187 Wash. 149

PACIFIC MERCANTILE AGENCY, Inc., v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF FERNDALE.

No. 26117.

Supreme Court of Washington

August 8, 1936

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, Whatcom County; Edwin Gruber, Judge.

Action by the Pacific Mercantile Agency, Incorporated, against the First National Bank of Ferndale. From an adverse judgment the plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

R. W Greene, of Bellingham, for appellant.

Walter B. Whitcomb, of Bellingham, for respondent.

MAIN Justice.

The plaintiff, as assignee for collection, brought this action to recover the balance claimed to be due on a contract to pay for building materials, to which the assignor was not a party. The cause was tried to the court without a jury, and resulted in findings of fact from which it was concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover. From the judgment entered dismissing the action, the plaintiff appeals.

The facts are these: The respondent is a banking corporation authorized to transact business in this state, with its principal place of business at Ferndale, in Whatcom county. The Wilson Lumber Company, Incorporated, is a corporation engaged in the business of selling building material. September 26, 1931, the bank, being then the owner of a farm in Whatcom county, contracted to sell the same to William Van Ry and Dorothy Van Ry, his wife. Further reference will be made to Mr. Van Ry as though he were the only party to the contract. The contract called for a msall sum as a down payment and comparactively small sums for monthly payments. It contained a forfeiture clause, and time was made the essence thereof. The contract provided that Van Ry should construct a barn upon the premises and make certain improvements to the dwelling house, and recited that. 'The Vendor [the bank] agrees to furnish material for the construction of the barn and for the repairs and improvements to the dwelling to the value of Twelve Hundred Dollars ($1200.00).'- After the contract was signed, Van Ry received an estimate from the Wilson Lumber Company as to the cost of the material necessary to construct the barn and improve the house. This estimate was in the sum of $963. Material was subsequently furnished, and the bank paid this full sum. The balance of the $1,200 was not paid for materials, but, on the order of Van Ry, was paid for certain labor which was performed in the construction. There was additional building material furnished by the lumber company, at the request of Van Ry, to the value of $429.53. Subsequently, due to the failure to perform the conditions of the contract by Van Ry, it was forfeited by the bank. Some time thereafter the present action was brought to recover the item of $429.53 with the result above indicated. The Wilson Lumber Company, as already appears, was not a party to the contract.

The question is whether that company has a right to recover on the alleged ground that the contract to pay for the building materials, as set out, was for its benefit. It is the law that, where one person, for a valuable consideration, makes a promise to another to pay the debt of that other to a third person, such third person may maintain an action in his own name upon the...