Shaw v. Briggle, 26731.
| Citation | 193 Wash. 595,76 P.2d 1011 |
| Decision Date | 01 March 1938 |
| Docket Number | 26731. |
| Parties | SHAW et ux. v. BRIGGLE et al. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2.
Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; Joseph B. Lindsley Judge.
Suit by Arthur D. Shaw and wife against Lottie M. Briggle and others for equitable relief, where a note, which was executed by plaintiff and intended to be a lien on land conveyed by plaintiff to one of the defendants, was not paid by defendants. From a judgment granting a lien on the realty for the amount of the note, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
J. F Aiken, of Spokane, for appellants.
Berkey & Cowan, of Spokane, for respondents.
The Shaws, plaintiffs in the court below, owned certain real property in Spokane, which was encumbered by a mortgage for $1,278.25 held by the Spokane & Eastern Trust Company. They had, in addition, borrowed $422.13 from the Federal Housing Administration and expended it for improvements on the property. The note evidencing that loan was also held by the Spokane & Eastern Trust Company, and both obligations were payable at its office in monthly installments.
Plaintiffs, desiring to exchange their property for unencumbered property, sought the services of defendant Lewis, a real estate broker. He arranged an exchange with Lottie M. Briggle. Lewis prepared the exchange agreement which recited the property to be conveyed by the plaintiffs was free from encumbrances, 'except a mortgage for $1,700'; this amount being used because the sum of the two obligations held by the trust company was $1,700.38 and all the parties mistakenly supposed that they were both covered by the mortgage.
It was further agreed that Mrs. Briggle would execute to the Shaws a second mortgage on the property to be conveyed to her by the Shaws for $370.30, to secure payment by her of certain encumbrances upon the property to be conveyed to them.
The parties met in the offices of the Spokane Title Company to close the deal. It is not certain whether or not Lewis was present, but it is clear that Mr. Morris, who, according to Lewis, was his partner in the deal, was there to supervise the matter. Mr. Hunt, escrow officer of the title company, explained to them that the $422.13 note was not secured by the mortgage, and also that interest had accrued on the obligations so that the sum of the two was $1,732.09. Thereupon it was agreed that Mrs. Briggle would pay $32.09 in cash and assume the $1,700 indebtedness, as originally planned. Mr. Morris, acting for Lewis and himself, procured an attorney to draft the deeds. The deed from the Shaws to Mrs. Briggle repeated the original mistake, reciting that the property was conveyed 'subject to balance due on mortgage held by Spokane and Eastern Trust Company in the sum of $1,700.' Thereafter Mrs. Briggle paid the monthly installments of the $422.13 note as they became due, until by June, 1936, the principal was reduced to $293.61.
On June 6, 1936, Mrs. Briggle entered into an exchange agreement with the Lewises to convey to them the property she had received from the Shaws. Lewis himself prepared the agreement which recited that the property was free from indebtedness 'except mtg. of $293.61 & $1144.90 to Spokane and Eastern and $345.69 to Desmond Shaw, less credits of $45, $34 and $14.60.' A few days after the execution of this agreement, Lewis received a title company report in which he, according to his own testimony discovered for the first...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dill v. Zielke
...409, we held that where evidence is excluded upon objection of appellant we will not consider that evidence on appeal. In Shaw v. Briggle, 193 Wash. 595, 76 P.2d 1011, refused to consider error of which respondent complained for the reason that there was no cross-appeal. Compare with the fo......
-
Waagen v. Gerde
... ... action triable de novo in this court. Shaw v ... Briggle, 193 Wash. 595, 76 P.2d 1011 ... The facts as found ... ...
-
Mattieligh v. Poe, 35013
...fails to exercise reasonable care and skill, he is liable to his client for the damages resulting from such failure. Shaw v. Briggle, 193 Wash. 595, 76 P.2d 1011; Western Bakeries, Inc. v. John Davis & Co., 110 Wash. 463, 188 P. 406; Smith v. Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co., 227 Ky. 120, 12 S......
-
Buchheit v. Geiger, 72548–3–I.
...Reformation will be granted even against a subsequent purchaser who obtained title with notice of the mistake. Shaw v. Briggle, 193 Wash. 595, 598, 76 P.2d 1011 (1938). In Shaw, the subsequent purchaser was personally involved in the drafting of the mistaken instrument and tried to profit f......