Ramp Buildings Corp. v. Northwest Bldg. Co., 22944.

• Decision Date: 22 October 1931
• Docket Number: 22944.
• Citation: 4 P.2d 507,164 Wash. 603
• Parties: RAMP BUILDINGS CORPORATION v. NORTHWEST BLDG. CO.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

4 P.2d 507

164 Wash. 603

RAMP BUILDINGS CORPORATION v. NORTHWEST BLDG. CO.

No. 22944.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

October 22, 1931

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Calvin S. Hall, Judge.

Action by the Ramp Buildings Corporation against the Northwest Building Company, which filed a cross-complaint. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Reversed with directions.

Stratton & Kane, of Seattle, for appellant.

H. G. &amp Dix H. Rowland, of Tacoma, for respondent.

BEALS J.

In its complaint, plaintiff alleged that at all times mentioned therein it held and controlled United States patents covering a system of staggered- floor and ramp building construction, useful in garages; that prior to May 12, 1926 defendant commenced the erection of a garage, consisting of several stories, in the city of Seattle, wherein it was proposed to install five motor ramps which came within the purview of plaintiff's patents; that May 12, 1926, plaintiff and defendant entered into a license agreement, whereby plaintiff authorized defendant to install its motor ramps in defendant's garage, for which license defendant agreed to pay plaintiff $3,465, or a greater sum in case the building should be enlarged; that defendant, May 17, 1926, paid the plaintiff, on account of the license agreement, the sum of $1,732.50; that defendant did enlarge its building, and that there became due the plaintiff from defendant, under the license agreement above referred to, the sum of $4,695, no portion of which had been paid, save the amount above mentioned; plaintiff praying for judgment for the balance which it claimed to be due. Thereafter defendant filed its answer and cross-complaint, and, later, its answer and amended first affirmative defense and cross-complaint; it being with the latter pleading that we are concerned on this appeal. Defendant admitted the execution of the license agreement pleaded by plaintiff; that it constructed the garage mentioned by plaintiff; and that it paid to plaintiff the sum of $1,732.50; but denied the other material allegations of the complaint. By way of a cross-complaint, defendant alleged that February 25, 1926, it leased two lots in the city of Seattle, and commenced thereon the construction of a garage; that the cost of the structure was to be upwards of $115,000, and that in order to finance the same defendant arranged to borrow from W. D. Comer & Co. the sum of $75,000, and secured payment of this sum by a mortgage on the leashold and the building, the proceeds of the loan to be advanced by the mortgagee from time to time to pay for material and labor as used; that after the making of the loan, but Before the payment of any considerable portion thereof, plaintiff notified defendant and also the mortgagee that it claimed that in the erection of the garage defendant was using a system of construction which was included within the patents owned by plaintiff, and plaintiff notified defendant that, unless defendant signed a contract similar to that referred to in plaintiff's complaint, plaintiff would cause the mortgagee to refuse to advance any further money, and thereby prevent the construction of the building; and '* * * That pursuant to such notice and threats it (plaintiff) did, for the purposes aforesaid, and for the purpose of causing the defendant to loss the many thousands of dollars it had already put into the construction of said building, and also said lease worth several thousands of dollars, induce and persuade the said W. D. Comer & Co., to refuse to advance and pay to the defendant the moneys required by its contract with defendant unless and until the defendant entered into said contract, Exhibit 'A' to the complaint herein; and the said plaintiff also notified the said defendant and the said mortgagee that it would not permit the use of said staggered floor building construction combined with ramps, and would enjoin the use thereof unless and until the said defendant entered into the contract, a copy of which is attached to plaintiff's complaint and marked Exhibit 'A."

Defendant further alleged that plaintiff also notified defendant's mortgagee of plaintiff's claims, and threatened the mortgagee with suits if it should pay any more money to defendant on account of the mortgage unless and until the mortgagee should see to it that plaintiff's claims were satisfied, and that by reason of plaintiff's threats inducements, and intimidations, defendant's mortgagee refused to advance any more money for the...