Stinson v. Stallsmith, 25054.
| Decision Date | 31 July 1934 |
| Docket Number | 25054. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | STINSON v. STALLSMITH. |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, Snohomish County; Ralph C. Bell, Judge.
Action by H. C. Stinson against Ivy S. Stallsmith. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Reversed with direction.
Attwood A. Kirby, of Seattle, for appellant.
Mulvihill & Anderson, of Everett, for respondent.
Mrs Ivy S. Stallsmith, née Mooney, for nine years, including 1930, worked in an abstract office in the city of Walla Walla, during which time she owned and maintained a home for herself and her father in or near the city. She employed H C. Stinson, a stranger, at his request, to make some small alterations or repairs to some of the buildings, and paint one of them. There was no express understanding as to what compensation he should receive. He stayed on the place more than a year, some four or five months of which time he worked for others than Mrs. Stallsmith, during all of which time he had his board and lodging at the home of Mrs Stallsmith. There was no settlement between them.
On February 7, 1930, she wrote to him, as follows:
The letter was received by him on February 11, 1930. He did not answer it.
Three years later, by summons and complaint filed February 8, 1933, he commenced this action upon an account stated against Mrs. Stallsmith, alleging that just prior to February 11, 1930, she became indebted to him for labor performed and material furnished and for money loaned in the total sum of $450, and that on or about February 11, 1930, 'there became and was an account stated, between the plaintiff and defendant, for the sum of $450.00, for which sum the said defendant thereby acknowledged herself indebted to plaintiff, and which sum should draw interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from February 11, 1930, until paid.'
The defendant answered, denying the allegation of the complaint. Upon the trial of the case, a single finding was made that, prior to February 11, 1930, the plaintiff had an account against defendant, 'and on or about the 11th day of February, 1930, said account became stated between the plaintiff and defendant for the sum of $450.00.' Conclusions and judgment accordingly were entered. The defendant has appealed.
The authorities, as quoted by the respondent, defining an 'account stated,' may be accepted as correct, as follows:
The letter does not measure up to the test. It does not contain any agreed balance of accounts, express or implied; nor does it presuppose an absolute acknowledgment of a certain sum due, or an adjustment of accounts between the parties, the striking of a balance and an assent, express or implied, to the correctness of the balance.
Given a reasonable construction, under the facts and circumstances in the case, the letter means: (1) That there was some question about the amount due her for his board, that she did not know 'what the board came to, but guess you do'; (2) that in the current, open account between them, she states the item of her indebtedness to him for labor and material; (3) offers him no money whatever; and (4) asks him how he would like to take the two lots and square her 'bill that way.'
It was only an offer on her part to give property at a price fixed by her in settlement of an open account between them, whatever the amount of the board bill due her.
Nor is the letter equivalent to an 'I owe _____ [writing into the blank space the name of the creditor],' as in the case of Choy v. Jim Sing, 125...
To continue reading
Request your trial