Stanton v. St. Michell

• Decision Date: 29 July 1924
• Docket Number: 18139.
• Citation: 227 P. 737,130 Wash. 449
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STANTON v. ST. MICHELL.

227 P. 737

130 Wash. 449

STANTON v. ST. MICHELL.

No. 18139.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

July 29, 1924

Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; Blake, Judge.

Action by E. H. Stanton against Alfred St. Michell. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

John M Gleeson, of Spokane, for appellant.

Plummer Zent & Lovell, of Spokane, for respondent.

PARKER J.

The plaintiff Stanton commenced this action in the superior court for Spokane county seeking foreclosure of a chattel mortgage upon an automobile executed and delivered to him by the defendant, St. Michell, to secure an indebtedness of $276 evidenced by promissory notes executed at the same time. Following a trial upon the merits the court made findings and awarded judgment of foreclosure as prayed for by Stanton from which St. Michell has appealed to this court.

Immediately prior to the execution of the notes and mortgage Stanton was the owner of an automobile in Spokane county in this state free from incumbrance. St. Michell was then the owner of a small dwelling premises situated in Moscow, Idaho, some 80 miles distant from Spokane, subject to a mortgage securing a principal indebtedness of $600. They entered into negotiations looking to a trade of these properties. They finally agreed to make such a trade by which Stanton was to convey the automobile to St. Michell and St. Michell was to convey the Moscow property to Stanton, subject to the $600 mortgage, and also pay to Stanton $276 by the execution of promissory notes therefor to be secured by a chattel mortgage upon the automobile. The conveyances, notes, and mortgage were executed accordingly, thus consummating the trade. The notes becoming payable and remaining unpaid, this action was commenced by Stanton seeking recovery thereon and foreclosure of the mortgage.

St Michell set up an affirmative defense in substance that Stanton had falsely represented the automobile to be a 1919 model, when in fact it was a 1917 model, and worth at least $300 less than it would have been had it been a 1919 model as represented, and claimed to have been damaged thereby in a sum greater than the amount due upon the notes. Stanton denied knowingly making any such misrepresentations, and also affirmatively resisted St. Michell's claim of damages by alleging in substance that St. Michell had falsely misrepresented the Moscow property to be free of all incumbrances save the principal owing upon the $600 mortgage, when in fact the property was incumbered to the extent of $950, and claimed to have been damaged thereby in a sum substantially in excess of any sum which St. Michell may have been damaged by any unture representation made with reference to the model of the automobile. Each party claims to have relied upon the alleged false misrepresentation made by the other, and that he was thereby induced to make the trade. The trial court found 'that the notes executed and delivered by defendant to plaintiff were the result of a trade between the parties, whereby plaintiff traded to defendant the automobile described in these findings, which was a 1917 model, and which the plaintiff described to be a 1919 model; * * * that the difference in value between the said car and a 1919 model was $300; that the defendant traded a piece of property in the town of Moscow, Idaho, to plaintiff in said...