Tupper v. Hartman

• Decision Date: 28 August 1922
• Docket Number: 17042.
• Citation: 208 P. 1103,121 Wash. 142
• Parties: TUPPER et al. v. HARTMAN et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

208 P. 1103

121 Wash. 142

TUPPER et al. v. HARTMAN et al.

No. 17042.

Supreme Court of Washington

August 28, 1922

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, Chelan County; William Grimshaw, Judge.

Action by Sarah E. Tupper and others against Henry Hartman and others, in which defendants filed a cross-complaint. Judgment for defendants on their cross-complaint, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Hughes & Wallace and Barrows & Hanna, all of Wenatchee, and S. J. Chadwick, of Seattle, for appellants.

Crollard & Steiner, of Wenatchee, for respondents.

MACKINTOSH J.

The appellants began this action to quiet title to certain lands in Chelan county, and the respondents have answered with a cross-complaint, for the purpose of quieting title in themselves.

We deem it unnecessary to make a recitation of the complicated facts in this case, which originated by the giving of a promissory note by E. and A. E. Messerly to the respondent Henry Hartman, in the sum of $1,000, which note was later sold by Hartman, who guaranteed the payment thereof. The facts lead through a tropic undergrowth of deaths, marriages assignments, judgments, and stipulations, and finally emerge in a sale of the property of Hartman to the value of over $100,000 to satisfy a judgment for some $1,600. The purpose of the respondents is to invalidate the sale of their property to satisfy this judgment. This court in Lovejoy v. Americus, 111 Wash. 571, 191 P. 790, set aside a judicial sale upon facts which are not very dissimilar from those in the case here, so we are not without warrant in pursuing the same course in this case.

But whether the action of the trial court should be sustained upon the theory of that case is immaterial for the reason that Hartman had been relieved from liability under the judgment obtained against him...