Williams v. Hillman Inv. Co.

• Decision Date: 17 March 1908
• Citation: 94 P. 653,48 Wash. 695
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. HILLMAN INV. CO.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

94 P. 653

48 Wash. 695

WILLIAMS v. HILLMAN INV. CO.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 17, 1908

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Arthur E. Griffin, Judge.

Action by Paul Williams against the Hillman Investment Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Judgment modified and affirmed.

Frederick R. Burch, for appellant.

Smith &amp Cole, for respondent.

ROOT J.

Defendant executed a contract for the sale of certain real estate to one Marguerite Foy, and subsequently executed a like contract for the same property to this plaintiff, and represented to him that Miss Foy had defaulted in her payments, that her contract had lapsed and was void, and that she was absent from the state. Plaintiff, believing and relying upon these representations, made payments monthly upon the property for about a year, and then tendered to the defendant the balance due upon his contract, and demanded a deed to the premises. Defendant declined to furnish said deed, and claimed that he had been unable to secure from Miss Foy a release of her rights under her contract. The trial court found that Miss Foy had been making her payments regularly as called for by her contract, and was living in the state, all of which was unknown to plaintiff, and that he had no means of ascertaining such facts. Defendant offered to refund plaintiff the money he had paid, together with legal interest thereupon, but the latter refused to receive the same, and brought this action to recover damages in the amount of the difference between the purchase price and the value of the property at the time he demanded a deed therefor; its value having enhanced since the contract of purchase was made. The trial court also found that the market value of the property at the time the deed was demanded was $1,026.25, that the plaintiff had paid $120, and that there was a balance of principal and interest due upon the contract of $321.25. Upon these findings the court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment against the defendant in the sum of $120, with interest, and for the amount of the market value of the premises less the amount then due; said difference being $775. Thereupon judgment was entered for said sums, and from this judgment the defendant appeals. No exceptions were taken to any of the findings.

The only question presented upon the appeal is that touching the correctness of the measure of damages and the amount...