Quigley v. Barash
| Citation | 237 P. 732,135 Wash. 338 |
| Decision Date | 15 July 1925 |
| Docket Number | 19299. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
| Parties | QUIGLEY v. BARASH. |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Jurey, Judge pro tem.
Action by F. D. Quigley against S. S. Barash. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
W. U Park, of Seattle, for appellant.
Ryan & Desmond and Wesley J. Mifflin, all of Seattle, for respondent.
This is an action for an accounting, and upon a trial before the court judgment was entered in favor of the defendant in the sum of $134.88. The statement of facts having heretofore been stricken, the only question before this court is whether the findings of fact support the conclusions of law and judgment.
The findings of fact are somewhat numerous, and need not be set out in detail, but it is sufficient to say that the court found that the parties had entered into a partnership in 1922 for the purpose of carrying on in Seattle a business known as 'Totem Tours'; the business of the partnership being to arrange and conduct trips to Alaska, the respondent taking care of the inside work, and the appellant to solicit hotels and other interests in Alaska to take care of the tourists sent there by the parties; that the appellant made a preliminary trip through Alaska making such arrangements, and that both parties, in the performance of their respective services, incurred and paid certain expenses; that the expenses proven by the respondent were proper expenses; that appellant's expense account was $694.30, and had been incurred while appellant was in Alaska in furtherance of the business; that during such trip the appellant engaged in personal business in which the partnership had no interest whatsoever; and that the business so transacted on his own behalf was of large and substantial character, but that notwithstanding such fact the appellant charged all the expense of the trip to the partnership. The court then found 'that it is fair and equitable that but one-half of said expense account be charged and allowed against the partnership.' The court then concluded as a matter of law that only one-half of the appellant's expense account should be charged to the partnership.
It is appellant's contention that the portion of the finding as follows 'that it is fair and equitable that only one-half of said expense account be charged and allowed against the partnership' is merely a conclusion of law, and is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ferree v. Doric Co.
...and judgment. In the case of Clifford v. State, 20 Wash.2d 527, 530, 148 P.2d 302, 303 (1944), we stated: '* * * In Quigley v. Barash, 135 Wash. 338, 237 P. 732, in answer to the contention of appellant that the trial court, at the conclusion of the testimony, gave an oral decision contrary......
-
DGHI Enterprises v. Pacific Cities, Inc., 38210-1-I
...In fact, it has stated the contrary. See State v. Kingman, 77 Wash.2d 551, 552, 463 P.2d 638 (1970) (citing Quigley v. Barash, 135 Wash. 338, 237 P. 732 (1925) and Ferree, 62 Wash.2d at 566, 383 P.2d 900). But in a pre-rule case, the Supreme Court conducted its review using a comprehensive ......
-
Ritter v. Johnson
...... can here be predicated upon the fact that such change was. made. Landry v. Seattle, etc., Co., 100 Wash. 453,. 171 P. 231; Quigley v. Barash, 135 Wash. 338, 237 P. 732. . . Mr. S. G. Fake, testifying as a witness on behalf of appellant,. ......
-
Foltz v. Manson
...... defense, and rendered judgment thereon a week later on. November 1, 1930. Quigley v. Barash, 135 Wash. 338,. 237 P. 732. . . We. conclude that the judgment must be affirmed. It is so. ......
-
§52.8 Strategic and Practical Considerations
...is not binding and remains subject to correction, modification, or complete abandonment. Ferree, 62 Wn.2d at 567; Quigley v. Barash, 135 Wash. 338, 340, 237 P. 732 (1925) (final ruling is "within the breast of the court" until it enters its formal written findings); Pearson v. Dep't of Labo......