York v. Stone
| Decision Date | 23 July 1934 |
| Docket Number | 25218. |
| Citation | 34 P.2d 911,178 Wash. 280 |
| Parties | YORK et al. v. STONE. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County; W. O. Chapman, Judge.
Action by E. R. York and others, as the trust committee of Edward B Rhodes Post No. 2, American Legion, against Inez Stone, who filed a cross-complaint. From a judgment dismissing the cross-complaint and quieting title to certain lots in plaintiffs, defendant appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Harry H. Johnston and Robert M. Davis, both of Tacoma, for appellant.
Earl V Clifford and Lindsay L. Thompson, both of Tacoma, for respondents.
This action was brought to quiet title to lots 4 to 8, inclusive in block 413, in the Tacoma Land Company's Third addition to the city of Tacoma. The defendant appeared by answer and cross-complaint, and sought a judgment quieting the title in her, subject to the right of redemption by the plaintiffs. The cause was tried to the court without a jury, and resulted in a judgment dismissing the cross-complaint and quieting the title in the plaintiffs, from which the defendant appeals.
The controlling facts are not in material dispute and may be summarized as follows: Some time prior to the year 1922, Edward B. Rhodes Post No. 2, Department of Washington American Legion, was organized. At that time, the War Camp Community Service owned a building in Tacoma, which will be referred to as the Commerce street property. The War Service was ready to cease activities, and the Rhodes Post desired to acquire the property, but had no money. Henry A. Rhodes, who was the father of Edward B. Rhodes who was killed while overseas in the World War, in appreciation of the fact that the post had been named after his deceased son, desired to help acquire the property. To this end, he furnished to the post $25,000 in the year 1922, upon open account; no security being taken. The post paid this $25,000 for the property, and contracted to pay an additional $5,000. Two years later, the $5,000 payment became due, and the post not having any money, Mr. Rhodes advanced this sum and the post secured a deed to the property.
At this time, August 13, 1924, a trust agreement was entered into between the post and Henry A. Rhodes, which provided that the post should execute a note, payable to Mr. Rhodes, for the sum of $30,000, which should be secured by a mortgage on the property. This agreement created a trust committee consisting of three members, two of whom were named by Mr. Rhodes. The agreement provided that the mortgage should be held and not placed of record until such time as the trust committee, in its judgment, thought it desirable to do so, in order to protect the rights and interests of the mortgagee. The agreement further made the trust committee self-perpetuating.
Some time during the year 1926, the thought of a permanent memorial structure developed, and, pursuant thereto, the Commerce street property was sold for $23,000 cash and three unimproved lots. The note and mortgage, with the interest thereon, were wholly unpaid, and, in connection with the sale of the Commerce street property, a second and more extensive trust agreement was entered into September 28, 1926, carrying out the idea of a permanent memorial structure. This second trust agreement is a comprehensive document, and is too long to be set out here in full. The ultimate effect of the document, when taken into consideration with the other evidence in the case, was that the obligations created by the note and mortgage were terminated and Mr. Phodes' position changed from that of a lender of money to that of a creator of a trust. This agreement was between the Rhodes Post and Henry A. Rhodes, recites in detail the previous dealings of the parties, and declares the intention to devote the cash and the proceeds resulting from the sale of the Commerce street property, 'to the construction of a memorial building in the city of Tacoma to be known as the Edward B. Rhodes Post Memorial Building, which building shall be constructed and used for the occupancy and benefit of the party of the first part [the Post] during its corporate existence and thereafter for some worthy public or charitable purpose.'
The second agreement continued the trust committee under the first, increased its personnel to five, and provided for its perpetuation. No incumbrance was to be placed on the building. In the event that there was a change in the personnel of the trust committee, an affidavit, signed and sworn to by a majority of the other trustees, setting forth the change, should be filed with the county auditor of Pierce county.
February 25, 1929, the Argo Investment Company, a corporation, conveyed to the 'Trust Committee of Edward B. Rhodes Post No. 2, American Legion,' the property here in question; the consideration being $12,000. Thereafter a building was erected upon the lots at a cost of approximately $30,000. No part of the money that went into the lots or the building came out of the treasury of the Rhodes Post. In addition to what was derived from the sale of the Commerce street property, there was a considerable sum that came in from individual subscriptions.
The second trust agreement provided that the Rhodes Post should have the control and management of the memorial building and the right to collect all revenues therefrom, and it was its duty to pay all taxes and assessments, insurance and operating expenses, and to maintain the same in good condition, 'provided that in case of emergency the Trust Committee shall have the power by a majority vote to take over the management and control of said building and to collect all income therefrom and apply the same to its expenses and to the payment of all proper charges against said building and all costs of operating and maintaining the same, but the party of the first part shall always be entitled to occupy so much of said building as is reasonably necessary for its activities.'
It thus appears that the Rhodes Post, by the express terms of the agreement, shall 'always be entitled to occupy' so much of the building as may be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hodgkiss v. Consolidated
...v. People's Bank, 122 Ala. 446, 26 So. 115. A deed is sufficient if the grantee can be identified by extrinsic evidence. York v. Stone, 178 Wash. 280, 34 P.(2d) 911. The trustees of the defendant trust were all parties to the trust agreement. They were identified persons. Accordingly, we ho......
-
Hodgkiss v. Northland Petroleum Consol.
... ... People's Bank, ... 122 Ala. 446, 26 So. 115. A deed is sufficient if the grantee ... can be identified by extrinsic evidence. York v ... Stone, 178 Wash. 280, 34 P.2d 911. The trustees of the ... defendant trust were all parties to the trust agreement. They ... were ... ...
-
Marriage of Harrington, In re
...exchangeable value, and every interest or estate which the law regards of sufficient value for judicial recognition." York v. Stone, 178 Wash. 280, 285, 34 P.2d 911 (1934). As have the majority of courts, Washington courts have traditionally considered stock options to be property. See In r......
-
In re Marriage of Ream
... ... value and every interest or estate which the law regards of ... sufficient value for judicial recognition. York v ... Stone , 178 Wash. 280, 285, 34 P.2d 911 (1934); In re ... Marriage of Harrington , 85 Wn.App. at 624. An ... enforceable ... ...
-
Table of Cases
...Co., 99 Wash. 480, 169 P. 967 (1918): 17.4(4)(b) York v. Cooper, 60 Wn.2d 283, 373 P.2d 493 (1962): 7.6(1)(a), 7.6(4) York v. Stone, 178 Wash. 280, 34 P.2d 911 (1934): 5.5(3) Young v. Nelson, 121 Wash. 285, 209 P. 515 (1922): 17.9(1) Young v. Riley, 59 Wn.2d 50, 365 P.2d 769 (1961): 17.4(5)......
-
Table of Cases
.... . . . 49.03[3] Yocum, In re Marriage of, 73 Wn. App. 699, 870 P.2d 1033 (1994) . . . . . . . . . . . 28.05[1]; 28.07[1] York v. Stone, 178 Wash. 280, 34 P.2d 911 (1934).30.02 York, In re Guardianship of, 44 Wn. App. 547, 723 P.2d 448 (1986). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61.06[1][l] Yo......
-
§5.5 - Elements of a Valid Deed
...in other states, hold that such a deed will vest legal title as completely as if the grantee were named in the instrument. York v. Stone, 178 Wash. 280, 34 P.2d 911 (1934). In fact, a deed in which the name of the grantee is left blank, but which is otherwise lawfully executed, will vest ti......
-
§30.02 What Is Property?
...App. 613, 624, 935 P.2d 1357 (1997) (citing WASHINGTON FAMILY LAW DESKBOOK § 38.2 (Wash. St. Bar Assoc., 1989) and quoting York v. Stone, 178 Wash. 280, 285, 34 P.2d 911 (1934)); see also In re Marriage of Langham & Kolde, 153 Wn.2d 553, 564, 106 P.3d 212 (2005). Certainly, any attorney or ......