Petersen v. Doak

• Decision Date: 27 July 1906
• Citation: 86 P. 663,43 Wash. 251
• Parties: PETERSEN v. DOAK.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

86 P. 663

43 Wash. 251

PETERSEN v. DOAK.

Supreme Court of Washington

July 27, 1906

Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; Miles Poindexter, Judge.

Action by M. Peterson against Howard B. Doak. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Robertson Miller & Rosenhaupt and Cullen & Dudley, for appellant.

Belt &amp Powell, for respondent.

ROOT J.

Respondent brought suit to recover possession of certain goods taken by the appellant as sheriff under a writ of attachment issued in an action wherein the Washington Liquor Company was plaintiff and Fred Lucas and James Lucas, as partners under the firm name of Lucas Bros., were defendants. A trial before the court without a jury was had, and findings of fact and conclusions of law duly entered favorable to respondent, upon which judgment was rendered. From this an appeal is taken.

From the findings of fact, to which no exception is taken, the following appears: Fred Lucas was engaged in the saloon business at Rosalia, and, being in failing circumstances and indebted to respondent in the sum of $757 for wines, liquors, and cigars, executed and delivered to respondent a bill of sale and all of his wines, liquors, and cigars, being his entire stock, and being composed partially of the identical goods for which he was indebted to respondent, and of the value of $600. Neither at the time said goods were sold to respondent not at any other time did the latter ask for or receive from said Lucas an affidavit or list of creditors, as provided for under the provisions of chapter 109, p. 222, of the Session Laws of the state of Washington for 1901. Respondent voluntarily paid the creditors of said Lucas living at Rosalia, but did not pay or secure the other creditors, of whom there were several; one being said Washington Liquor Company.

It is urged by appellant that the sale and transfer of the entire stock by Lucas to respondent, without an affidavit and list of creditors being demanded or given, was absolutely void on account of the 'sales in bulk' statute. Respondent maintains, however, that this statute has no application to the facts of this case. It does not appear from the findings that the Washington Liquor Company was a creditor of either Fred Lucas, or Lucas Bros., at the time of the sale, or at any time, except by inference. Hence, the question of whether respondent complied with the 'sales in bulk' statute becomes immaterial....