Service v. Deming Inv. Co.

• Decision Date: 22 March 1899
• Citation: 20 Wash. 668,56 P. 837
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: SERVICE et ux. v. DEMING INV. CO.

56 P. 837

20 Wash. 668

SERVICE et ux. v. DEMING INV. CO.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 22, 1899

Appeal from superior court, Spokane county; Leander H. Prather Judge.

Action by John Service and Mary J. Service against the Deming Investment Company. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Danson & Huncke, for appellant.

W. H. Ludden and James Z. Moore, for respondents.

GORDON C.J.

Plaintiffs John and Mary J. Service, are husband and wife. They sued to recover damages for the breach of a contract whereby the defendant agreed to sell a certain farm to them. From a judgment in their favor, the defendant has appealed.

The appellant is a corporation of the state of Kansas, and for a number of years past has been doing business in this state with a local office at Colfax, Wash. Its principal business in this state is loaning money, and incidentally thereto it manages and disposes of real estate for its Eastern clients. Among other properties which it was so managing was the farm in question, located in Whitman county, in this state. In its answer it alleges that it had full right and authority to enter into a contract of sale of the land for the owner. The farm is located near the village of Fairfield, and for a period of seven or eight years prior to the making of the alleged contract one Bradshaw, residing at Fairfield, had been engaged in making loans for the defendant, and in a few instances had procured purchasers for defendant's lands. The contract upon which the plaintiff relies was made with Bradshaw. Upon the part of the appellant it is admitted that Bradshaw was authorized to find a purchaser for the farm at $2,400. The evidence shows that on the 2d of September, 1897 the plaintiff John Service entered into negotiations with Bradshaw for the purchase of the farm. The purchase price agreed upon was $2,400. By the terms of the agreement, plaintiffs were to make a cash payment of $500. The balance was to be in annual payments, secured by a mortgage, and plaintiffs were to be let into immediate possession. Before executing any memorandum, Bradshaw and plaintiff John Service went to the telephone office in Fairfield, and Bradshaw talked over the telephone with the general manager of the appellant at Colfax. In this conversation Bradshaw stated: 'I told him that I had an offer for the Hardman farm. Stated the terms of $500 cash; $200 the 1st of January, 1898; and the balance in five years. I think I did not state the amounts, but that it would be divided up satisfactorily to the purchasers, so that he could make the payments at ten per cent. interest; and Mr. Waskey [the manager] asked if I had anything paid down. I told him I had not, and he said, 'Better have a hundred dollars forfeit money.' Mr. Service was standing in the office booth, or whatever you might call it, at the time, and I simply told him that they required him to pay a hundred dollars forfeit money. He said he did not have it then, but could get it. And then I did not see Mr. Service any more until the next day. He told me to come down the next morning, and he would have the hundred dollars. Question. Did Mr. Waskey say anything to you during that conversation about the terms of the sale,--whether they were satisfactory to him or otherwise? Answer. He approved of the sale; in what words, I can't say.' Following this conversation over the telephone, Bradshaw immediately wrote Mr. Waskey, informing him in detail of the terms of the proposed sale; and on the following day, viz. September 3d, received, in due course of mail, the following letter, which was received in evidence at the trial: 'Colfax, Washington, Sept. 3rd, 1897. I. W. Bradshaw, Esq., Fairfield, Washington--Dear Sir: We are just this noon in receipt of your letter of the 2nd inst., regarding the sale of the Hardman farm. The proposition of terms will be satisfactory to us. We note that Mr. Service wants possession at once, or as soon as the lease is out. We also note your postscript asking what arrangements had been made about the breaking done last spring,--that one of the boys had broken out 15 acres. In reply, will say that our lease expires on November 1st, and, under its terms, we are to have possession of the property, if the crop is removed, on thirty days' notice, and therefore we herewith inclose you a notice to serve on the Bleisners and Shultz. This lease does not make any reference or conditions for the breaking of the land that you mention. We are not aware that any new land had been broken out. Was this new land in crop this year? Therefore, under the terms of the lease, we can give Mr. Service possession inside of thirty days. In fact, we see no objection to him going on and plowing the land now, as we have a right to enter upon the premises that are not in crop, although the parties may keep possession of the buildings for the next thirty days after the notice is given. Wish you would kindly see the lessees in this case with reference to this 15 acres of breaking, and see what they have to say about it. We also understand there were 5 acres additional of wheat that was not cut and threshed at the time the other was cut and threshed. What about this? When are they going to cut and thresh this, and when will our share be delivered? What has been done with reference to the sacks? We want to get this sack matter closed up and paid for as soon as possible, and would like to have the tenants do something towards settling up their misunderstanding or...