West Coast Credit Corp. v. Pedersen
| Decision Date | 26 March 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 36786,36786 |
| Parties | WEST COAST CREDIT CORPORATION, a corporation, Appellant, v. Robert L. PEDERSEN and Jane Doe Pedersen, his wife, Harold Duane Harvey and Jane Doe Harvey, his wife, and Atlas Tractor Rentals, Inc., a corporation, Respondents, Charles Cleman and Jane Doe Cleman, his wife, Defendants. WEST COAST CREDIT CORPORATION, a corporation, Appellant, v. Richard D. LANG and Jane Doe Lang, his wife, whose true given name is to plaintiff unknown, Harold Duane Harvey and Betty Harvey, his wife, and Atlas Tractor Rentals, Inc., a corporation, Respondents, Charles Cleman and Jane Doe Cleman, his wife, Defendants. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Schweppe, Reiter, Doolittle & Krug, Seattle, for appellant.
E. Theme Carros, Seattle, for Lang. William B. Christie, Seattle, for Pedersen.
The appellant brought these consolidated actions as assignee of two conditional-sales contracts, claiming an unpaid balance due on each contract. Named as defendants were the assignor (seller of the tractors covered by the coutracts, who had guaranteed payment of the purchase price in each instance), the manufacturer of the tractors (as alleged principal of the seller), and the purchasers of the tractors. The seller, Charles Cleman, defaulted, and judgment was entered against him and his wife, according to the prayers of the complaints.
The actions were tried to the court, which granted the remaining defendants' motions for dismissal at the close of the plaintiff's evidence, on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to present proof that there was anything due and owing on either of the contracts. The plaintiff's motion to reopen to present formal proof was denied. On this appeal from the judgment entered in favor of these defendants, the appellant contends that the court committed several errors, only two of which we find it necessary to discuss in order to dispose of the matter. The first of these was a ruling by the court that one of the contracts sued upon was inadmissible. This ruling was made after the defendant Robert L. Pedersen admitted that he had signed the contract, but testified that he had signed it in blank and that the blanks had not been filled in in accordance with his agreement.
While it is the rule that a party may show by parol that he executed an instrument in blank and it was filled out without authority or improperly (see 32 C.J.S. Evidence § 977, p. 936), such evidence does not render the document inadmissible. The contract in this case was the instrument sued upon and as such was relevant, material, and competent. 20 Am.Jur., Evidence § 912, p. 768. Whether it correctly expressed the contract between the parties was an issue to be determined by the trier of the fact after hearing all of the evidence; and it was error to exclude it on the bare assertion of its invalidity by the person who admittedly executed it.
The other significate assignment of error is directed to the court's ruling on the motions for dismissal at the close of the plaintiff's evidence. As we have stated before, these motions were granted on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to prove an essential element of each of it causes of action--that there was anything due and owing on the contracts.
This ruling was incorrect, for the reason that the burden was not upon the plaintiff to prove that the indebtednesses had not been paid,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frank Stinson Chevrolet, Inc. v. Connelly
...282 S.W.2d 200 (Mo.Ct.App.1955); McCallister v. Farmers Development Co., 47 N.M. 395, 143 P.2d 597 (1943); West Coast Credit Corp. v. Pedersen, 64 Wash.2d 33, 390 P.2d 551 (1964); State Bank of Wheatland v. Bagley Bros., 44 Wyo. 244, 11 P.2d 572 (1932). The cited cases are distinguishable f......
-
In re Garvida
...and interest. Washington law follows the general common law regarding payment and burdens of proof. W. Coast Credit Corp. v. Pedersen, 64 Wash.2d 33, 390 P.2d 551, 553 (1964) (approving general common law rule); U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Whitney, 119 Wash.App. 339, 81 P.3d 135, 140-42 (2003)......
-
Spam Arrest, LLC v. Replacements, Ltd.
...reasoning that it is easier for a defendant to prove payment than it is for a plaintiff to prove non-payment. W. Coast Credit Corp. v. Pedersen, 390 P.2d 551, 553 (Wash. 1964). Similarly, Spam Arrest asserts that it is easier for Sentient Jet to prove that it obtained consent than for Spam ......
- Peterson v. Brookdale Senior Living Cmtys., Inc.