Pinell v. Roppo

• Decision Date: 21 April 1925
• Docket Number: 19056.
• Citation: Pinell v. Roppo, 134 Wash. 158, 234 P. 1035 (Wash. 1925)
• Parties: PINELL v. ROPPO et ux.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

234 P. 1035

134 Wash. 158

PINELL v. ROPPO et ux.

No. 19056.

Supreme Court of Washington

April 21, 1925

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Smith, Judge.

Action by Louis Pinell against D. Roppo and wife. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Tucker Hyland & Elridge and Mary H. Alvord, all of Seattle, for appellant.

Elias A. Wright and Sam A. Wright, both of Seattle, for respondents.

ASKREN, J.

This is an action for contribution for loss sustained on a contract to purchase mining stock. It appears from the evidence that plaintiff Pinell, defendant Roppo, and one E. Sholz, on January 31, 1922, signed a subscription to purchase $6,000 worth of stock of the Sound Oil Company. All of the parties at the time had great visions of money to be made in this venture; Pinell especially being assisted in his belief by the advice of a fortune teller in a nearby city. However shortly after signing the agreement, Sholz and Roppo became dissatisfied with the deal, and Roppo testified that they came to the conclusion they had been buncoed, and notified Pinell that they would have nothing more to do with the matter and would make no payments. Thereafter Pinell made payments amounting to $690 upon the contract. However, he soon decided he had been defrauded, and in the month of April, 1922, a suit was brought against the Sound Oil Company by Sholz, Roppo, and Pinell for the recovery of the $690 paid; the complaint asking for the cancellation of the contract upon the ground that it had been procured by fraud. The complaint was verified by Roppo. A settlement was made of that suit, whereby $300 was paid by the Sound Oil Company and the contract canceled. The attorney in that case was paid $100, leaving a balance of $200 net to the parties, which sum was retained by Pinell and credit given on the $690 he had already paid. Pinell also sued upon a promissory note, signed by himself, defendant Roppo, and one Burch, in the sum of $100, dated June 7, 1922, which he had paid, including costs and interest, amounting to $150. Recovery was sought for one-half of this amount, as well as one-third of the amount lost on the original contract for the sale of stock.

The defendant alleges that the note was signed by him for Pinell as an accommodation maker only, and as to the loss upon the contract for the sale of stock the defendant claimed that the payments had been made against his consent and after he had notified the plaintiff not to do so. After a trial before the court sitting without a jury, the court decided that the note of $100 sued upon had been signed by the defendant as an accommodation maker, and the money obtained thereon was a part of the $690 paid by Pinell to the Sound Oil Company; that all payments had been made by Pinell after he had been notified by Roppo not to do so, and therefore judgment was entered for the defendant, and the plaintiff has appealed.

Appellant assigns three grounds of error: (1) That the judgment is against the weight of the evidence; (2) that he is entitled to contribution; and (3) estoppel. Counsel agree that this court will not set aside the findings of the trial court unless we can say that the evidence preponderates against such findings. At counsel's suggestion we have carefully read the record, and the only conclusion to be drawn therefrom is that the trial court was amply justified in the findings made.

Appellant's contention with regard to contribution is that, even if the court found that the...