Spinning v. Allen
| Decision Date | 10 January 1895 |
| Citation | 39 P. 151,10 Wash. 570 |
| Parties | SPINNING v. ALLEN ET AL. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Appeal from superior court, Pierce county; Emmett N. Parker, Judge.
Action by Sarah A. Spinning against H. F. Allen and C. F. Lewis, as partners, and A. G. Mathews, sheriff. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
Taylor & McKay, for appellant.
Sharpstein & Blattner, for respondents.
Frank R. Spinning, the husband of the plaintiff, was a stockholder in the Hastie Lumber Company, a corporation organized and doing business in this state. On June 13, 1892, he delivered to one N.M. Singleton the following instrument: Thereafter Allen & Lewis sold to the Hastie Lumber Company goods to the amount of about $1,000 and, the company failing to pay therefor, suit was brought against said Frank R. Spinning on his guaranty, and he suffered judgment to go against him by default. An execution was issued thereon, and levied upon a certain tract of land which was the community property of the plaintiff and her husband; and this action was brought to enjoin the sale. Judgment was rendered against the plaintiff and this appeal was taken.
The conclusion at which we have arrived with reference to two of the questions involved decides the case in favor of the plaintiff, and it is unnecessary to pass upon others which are raised. The first one is as to the character of the debt. The plaintiff contends that said Frank R. Spinning was simply a surety of the Hastie Lumber Company, and therefore the debt contracted must be considered as his separate debt; while the respondents contend that the community should be held upon the said guaranty, and that said debt should not be considered as a separate debt of said Frank R Spinning, on the ground that he was a stockholder in said corporation. We are of the opinion that said debt must be considered as the separate debt of Frank R. Spinning, notwithstanding the fact that he was such a stockholder, as the corporation was really a third and independent party. There was no individual liability upon the part of said...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Sur. Co. of New York v. Sandberg
... ... Langert, 1 Wash. 73, 23 P. 688; Gund v. Parke, ... 15 Wash. 393, 46 P. 408; Bird v. Steele, 74 Wash ... 68, 70, 132 P. 724; Spinning v. Allen, 10 Wash. 570, ... 39 P. 151 ... Another ... one of the indemnitors, a stockholder in the Wells ... Construction Company, ... ...
-
Warren v. Washington Trust Bank
...Mantas, 32 Wash.2d 920, 204 P.2d 203 (1949); Case Threshing Machine Co. v. Wiley, 89 Wash. 301, 154 P. 437 (1916); and Spinning v. Allen, 10 Wash. 570, 39 P. 151 (1895). The bank urges that the burden of proving the community obligation does not exist rests with the Warrens and that there i......
-
Beyers v. Moore, 32771
...community from the tractor transaction at the time the note was signed by respondent Eberli, it was a community obligation. Spinning v. Allen, 10 Wash. 570, 39 P. 151; Case Threshing Machine Co. v. Wiley, 89 Wash. 301, 154 P. 437; Zarbell v. Mantas, 32 Wash.2d 920, 204 P.2d 203; and Fies v.......
-
Zarbell v. Mantas
... ... Affirmed ... Appeal ... from Superior Court, King County; Clay Allen, Judge ... [204 P.2d 204] ... Melvin ... T. Swanson, of Seattle, for appellant ... Oscar ... A ... Mechem, 11 Wash.L.Rev ... 80, 87. The original reason behind the rule was set forth in ... the early case of Spinning v. Allen, 10 Wash. 570, ... 39 P. 151, 152, as follows: '[The Code (Gen.Stat. § ... 1413)] expressly provides that neither spouse shall ... ...
-
Table of Cases
...of, 31 Wn.App. 432, 643 P.2d 450 (1982): 4.16(1), 5.6(5) Spears v.Lawrence, 10 Wash. 368, 38 P. 1049 (1894): 6.5(1) Spinning v.Allen, 10 Wash. 570, 39 P. 151 (1895): 6.2(2)(c) Spokane StateBank v. Tilton, 132 Wash. 641, 233 P. 15 (1925): 4.10, 6.2(5), 6.5(7) Spokane ValleyLumber & Box Co. v......
-
§6.2 Contractual Liability and other Nontort Obligations
...grounds, Walker v. Fowler, 155 Wash. 631, 285 P. 649 (1930); Union Sec. Co. v. Smith, 93 Wash. 115, 160 P. 304 (1916); Spinning v. Allen, 10 Wash. 570, 39 P. 151 The court has found the necessary community benefit in guaranteeing the debt of purchasers of a community business. The expectati......