Young v. Smith

• Decision Date: 26 May 1896
• Citation: 14 Wash. 565,45 P. 45
• Parties: YOUNG v. SMITH ET AL.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

45 P. 45

14 Wash. 565

YOUNG v. SMITH ET AL.

Supreme Court of Washington

May 26, 1896

Appeal from superior court, Chehalis county; Mason Irwin, Judge.

Action by Alexander Young against William E. Smith and another as principals, and Frank M. Peterson as surety, on a note. The principal defendants defaulted, and from a judgment in favor of defendant Peterson, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Bush &amp Coons, for appellant.

Geo. D Schofield, for respondent.

SCOTT J.

This is an action upon a promissory note for $400, given by the defendants Smith as principals, and by Peterson as surety. It was made payable to the order of the cashier of the First National Bank of Aberdeen. Prior to the signing of said note it appears that the plaintiff had executed a note to said bank to obtain a like sum of money for the purpose of loaning it to the defendants Smith, and that he did loan it to them taking their note to himself therefor, and also security upon a quantity of furniture. The note in suit was intended for the purpose of taking up these notes. A verdict and judgment were rendered in favor of defendant Peterson, and the plaintiff has appealed. He alleges that the court erred in admitting testimony as to a certain conversation, had between the defendants Smith and Peterson, relating to the giving of the note, and also to an instruction given by the court to the jury. It appeared that the Smiths, after signing the note, brought it to Peterson to obtain his signature, and that Peterson signed the same and inclosed it in a letter to the plaintiff. Said letter was as follows "Westport, Apr. 14th, 1893. Mr. Alex. Young-Dear Sir: Please find inclosed note of W. E. Smith's which he says you will sign so I will when you do you can turn it over to him when you see it is all right. He is to make a bill of sale of a lot of furniture is it all O. K. Very respt. yours, F. M. Peterson." It is clear that, by the terms of this letter, Peterson consented to become a party to the note only upon the condition that the plaintiff would sign it also, and its delivery was made conditional upon plaintiff's signing it. Instead of signing it, plaintiff delivered the note to the bank, taking up his note, and also surrendered to the Smiths the note and security previously executed by them to him. It appears that the bank became dissatisfied with the transaction, and entered into an arrangement with the plaintiff whereby the transfer of...