Spinning v. Allen

• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: SCOTT, J.
• Citation: Spinning v. Allen, 10 Wash. 570, 39 P. 151 (Wash. 1895)
• Decision Date: 10 January 1895
• Parties: SPINNING v. ALLEN ET AL.

39 P. 151

10 Wash. 570

SPINNING v. ALLEN ET AL.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 10, 1895

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.

Hoyt and Stiles, JJ., dissenting.

Taylor & McKay, for appellant.

Sharpstein & Blattner, for respondents.

SCOTT J.

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: "Messrs Allen & Lewis, Portland, Org.-Dear Sirs: The bearer, N.M Singleton, visits Portland for the purpose of purchasing supplies for the Hastie Lumber Company, of Puyallup Washington. I will guarantee the payment of goods sold to them until further notice. Please keep me advised of the amount of goods sold to them, and oblige, yours, truly, Frank R. Spinning." 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 Frank...