Roberts v. J. & H. Goodwin, 23345.
Citation | 166 Wash. 382,7 P.2d 8 |
Decision Date | 19 January 1932 |
Docket Number | 23345. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
Parties | ROBERTS v. J. & H. GOODWIN, Limited. |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, Yakima County; A. W. Hawkins, Judge.
Action by R. J. Roberts against J. & H. Goodwin, Limited. From a judgment of dismissal, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Moulton & Powell, of Kennewick, for appellant.
La Berge, Cheney & Hutcheson, of Yakima, for respondent.
The plaintiff, hereinafter called Roberts, commenced this action in the superior court for Yakima county, seeking recovery from the defendant, hereinafter called Goodwin, upon one cause of action, for the alleged conversion by Goodwin of 1,021 boxes of Winesap apples alleged to belong to Roberts; and upon a second cause of action, for the alleged conversion by Goodwin of 756 boxes of Rome Beauty apples alleged to belong to Ira C. Hawley, which was by him assigned to Roberts Before the commencement of this action. Roberts prayed for judgment against Goodwin in the sum of $2,313, the alleged value of the 1,021 boxes of apples, and in the sum of $1,192, the alleged value of the 756 boxes of apples. Goodwin answered, denying ownership of the apples in Roberts and Hawley. Goodwin, by an affirmative defense claimed a lien upon all of the apples to secure loans of money owing by K. Lane Johnson to Goodwin, the lien being evidenced by negotiable warehouse receipts for the apples issued to Johnson and assigned to Goodwin, and the loan being evidenced by promissory notes; and also claimed the right to sell the apples, which right was accordingly exercised applying the proceeds of the sale in partial satisfaction of the loan indebtedness of Johnson. Goodwin also, as a second affirmative defense to the second cause of action, alleged the pendency of another action between Hawley and Goodwin in the superior court for Benton county, involving, as it is claimed, the same controversy as is here involved in the second cause of action. Roberts replied by appropriate denials to the affirmative defenses of Goodwin. The trial judge, viewing the issues so made, ruled that the cause became one of equitable cognizance. The trial proceeded accordingly, though the trial judge impaneled a jury to aid him in an advisory capacity in determining questions of fact, should he find the need of such aid. At the conclusion of the evidence introduced in behalf of Roberts. counsel or Goodwin moved for judgment denying relief as prayed for. This motion was by the court granted, and final judgment of dismissal was rendered accordingly, from which Roberts has appealed to this court.
During and prior to the times in question, Roberts and Hawley were each growers of apples; their orchards being near White Bluffs, in Benton county. During and prior to the times in question, Goodwin was an English concern, dealing in apples, maintaining its headquarters for its business in this state at Yakima. During and prior to the times in question, K. Lane Johnson was a broker, maintaining his place of business at Yakima, engaged in making contracts with growers of apples, while their crops were maturing, for the marketing of such crops, and making cash advances to growers to aid them in financing their growing, caring for, and gathering of such crops.
In the spring of 1928, Roberts and Johnson entered into a contract, reading, in so far as need be here noticed, as follows:
We have italicized portions of the contract to be particularly noticed. The contract was executed by...
To continue reading
Request your trial