Pitt v. Little

• Decision Date: 16 May 1910
• Parties: PITT et al. v. LITTLE.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

108 P. 941

58 Wash. 355

PITT et al. v. LITTLE.

Supreme Court of Washington

May 16, 1910

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Pacific County; A. E. Rice Judge.

Action by Thomas Pitt and another, copartners as Pitt & Peterson against A. C. Little. From a judgment for defendant plaintiffs appeal. Reversed and remanded.

H. W. B. Hewen, for appellants.

Welsh, Welsh & O'Phelan, for respondent.

CROW J.

This action was commenced by Thomas Pitt and A. H. Peterson, copartners as Pitt & Peterson, against A. C. Little, to recover an indebtedness claimed to be due on a promissory note executed and delivered by the defendant. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiffs have appealed from the final judgment entered thereon.

The appellants' controlling contention is that the trial court erred in refusing to direct a verdict and judgment in their favor. The original note read as follows: 'Victoria, B. C. Febr. 1st, 1903. Due Oct. 1st/03. $206 39/100. Eight months after date I promise to pay to the order of Messrs. Pitt & Peterson, Duncan's Station, two hundred and six 39/100 dollars at interest 8 per cent. per annum. Payable at the Canadian Bank of Commerce, Victoria, B. C. Value received. A. C. Little. No. ___ Given on act, of International M. & D. Co.' Although it appears upon the face of the note that it was executed in British Columbia, no contention or claim predicated upon British Columbia laws has been made. We will therefore consider the laws of this state only; it being presumed, in the absence of any pleading or evidence to the contrary, that foreign laws are the same. Gunderson v. Gunderson, 25 Wash. 459, 65 P. 791; Daniel v. Gold Hill Mining Co., 28 Wash. 411, 68 P. 884.

The complaint is in usual form. The respondent, answering, admitted the execution and delivery of the note, but denied that he had promised to pay the appellants $206.39, or any other sum. For his first affirmative defense he, in substance, alleged that some time prior to February 1, 1903, the International Mining & Development Company, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Washington, was indebted to the appellants in the sum of $206.39; that on said date respondent at their request signed and delivered the note; that he himself was not indebted to them in any sum; that the note was without consideration; that he did not receive anything of value therefor; and that prior and subsequent to its execution the appellants agreed with him that they would not attempt to collect the note from him, but would look solely to the International Mining & Development Company for payment. For a further affirmative defense the respondent alleged: 'That after the execution of said note, and some time during the year 1903, the exact date being to defendant unknown, in the city of Victoria, British Columbia, the plaintiffs and each of them, for a valuable consideration, released defendant from all liability, on said promissory note, and informed the defendant that they would look to the International Mining & Development Company solely and exclusively for the payment of said note, which said release was oral and was made in consideration of the said defendant promising and agreeing with the plaintiffs to use his influence with and endeavor to persuade the International Mining & Development Company and one T. J. Reinhart and other persons, whose names are at this time unknown to defendant, and who were indebted to plaintiffs, to pay to plaintiffs their said indebtedness; and defendant alleges that thereafter and in compliance with said agreement he did use his influence with and endeavor to persuade the said International Mining & Development Company and said T. J. Reinhart and said other persons to pay plaintiffs the amount of their said indebtedness to plaintiffs.'

The evidence fails to sustain respondent's contention that the note was without consideration. It appears that the International Mining & Development Company, of which the respondent was president, was indebted to the appellants in the sum of $206.39 for merchandise sold; that the appellants endeavored to collect the same; that respondent executed and delivered the note in consideration of such debt and an extension of time for payment, which appellants granted by accepting the note. The debt of the corporation and the extension of time constituted a sufficient consideration. A negotiable promissory note is not void for want of consideration, if given for the matured debt of a third ...