Stanton v. Dennis

• Citation: 116 P. 650,64 Wash. 85
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Decision Date: 08 July 1911
• Parties: STANTON v. DENNIS.

116 P. 650

64 Wash. 85

STANTON v. DENNIS.

Supreme Court of Washington

July 8, 1911

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, King County, Boyd J. Tallman Judge.

Action by E. M. Stanton against W. H. Dennis. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Brady &amp Rummens and Henry W. Pennock, for appellant.

John E Ryan and Grover E. Desmond, for respondent.

FULLERTON, J.

Some time in 1909, the Thompson-Starrett Company entered into a contract to construct an addition to the Fidelity Trust Company's building in the city of Tacoma. Thereafter they sublet the contract for doing the painting and carpentry work on the building to the appellant, W. H. Dennis. The appellant, being desirous of again subletting the carpentry work, requested one Phil E. Dunnavant to bid thereon, at the same time furnishing him with a copy of the plans and specifications of the work. Later on Dunnavant submitted the following writing: 'Portland, Ore., Jan. 7, 1910. W. H Dennis, Seattle, Wash.--Dear Sir: Confirming our conversation with you over long distance phone this afternoon we propose to furnish all labor for setting millwork and carpentry on the addition to the Fidelity Trust Co.'s building at Tacoma, Wash., for the sum of five thousand seven hundred and no/100 dollars ($5,700.00). The work above mentioned is to be included and above the seventh floor and is to be in accordance with plans and specifications prepared by D. H Burnham, Chicago. It is understood that we are not to furnish labor for laying floors, putting up door jacks or setting any centers or grounds. It is also understood that we are to furnish no material of any description used in setting the millwork or in any of the carpentry work. Formal contract to follow. Phil E. Dunnavant & Co., Per Phil E. Dunnavant. Accepted: _____.' This writing with duplicate copies was forwarded to the appellant by Dunnavant, who, upon receipt thereof, wrote his name after the word 'Accepted,' and returned the same to Dunnavant.

Early in February, 1910, Dunnavant became financially embarrassed and sought the appellant, and suggested to him the idea of putting the contract in the name of a third party. The appellant took the matter under consideration, and Dunnavant returned to his home at Portland, Or., from which place he wrote the appellant as follows: 'Portland, Oregon. Feb 25, 1910. W. H. Dennis, White Building, Seattle, Wash.--Dear Sir: Would like to have you write me and let me know what response you got to the telegram you sent while I was there. I have had to turn all of my work over to the bonding companies as I was unable to pull through. It will help me a great deal if you will give me some information about the Spokane job and also the Tacoma job. I have been expecting a letter from you daily since my return but so far have received none. Thanking you in advance, I am, Yours very truly, Phil E. Dunnavant.' To this the appellant answered by the following letter: 'Feb. 28, 1910. Mr. Phil E. Dunnavant, Portland, Oregon--Dear Sir: In answer to yours of last week, will say that under the circumstances it will be impossible to do the work as we talked of in our talk when you were up here and will have to arrange with some other contractor to do the work at Spokane and Tacoma. Am sorry but cannot do anything else as it has turned out. Yours truly, W. H. Dennis & Son.' To this letter the appellant replied: 'Portland, Oregon. March 2, 1910. Mr. W. H. Dennis, Seattle, Wash.--Dear Sir: Your letter of the 28th ult. received and carefully fully noted, under existing circumstances I do not feel like letting the contracts for the Tacoma and Spokane jobs go as there is good...