Zioncheck v. Hepden

• Decision Date: 08 July 1927
• Docket Number: 20592.
• Citation: Zioncheck v. Hepden, 144 Wash. 272, 257 P. 835 (Wash. 1927)
• Parties: ZIONCHECK v. HEPDEN et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

257 P. 835

144 Wash. 272

ZIONCHECK v. HEPDEN et al.

No. 20592.

Supreme Court of Washington

July 8, 1927

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Douglas, Judge.

Action by Frances Zioncheck against James Hepden and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Peters & Powell and Robert W. Reid, all of Seattle, for appellants.

Wm. G Beardslee and M. H. Cooperman, both of Seattle, for respondent.

MAIN J.

By this action the plaintiff seeks to recover upon a promise made for her benefit but not to her. The cause was tried to the court and a jury and resulted in a verdict against the defendants James Hepden and Charles I. Neff in the sum of $1,505.35. Motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and in the alternative for a new trial was interposed and overruled. Judgment was entered upon the verdict, from which Hepden and Neff appeal.

The preliminary facts may be summarized as follows: A partnership composed of P. B. Groshong, William J. Nadeau, and C.J Kneeland, the latter being a silent partner, operated the Central Café in Seattle. The respondent advanced money to the partnership for which on July 24, 1923 she received a note signed by Groshong and Nadeau in the amount of $1,375. On August 13, 1924, the note not being tnen paid, the partnership, being in financial difficulties, made an assignment for the benefit of creditors to the Seattle Merchants' Association and that association sold the assets to the appellants. In this transaction the appellants agreed in writing to pay the outstanding charges against the partnership with certain exceptions. As shown by the evidence offered by the respondent, her claim represented by the balance due upon the promissory note was included in those which the appellants promised and agreed to pay. It was upon this promise that the action was based.

Much of the argument of the appellants proceeds upon the assumption that the action was upon the promissory note. The second amended complaint, upon which the cause was tried, makes it plain that recovery was sought upon the promise made to the Seattle Merchants' Association at the time the appellants purchased the assets and not upon the promissory note. The evidence offered by the respondent supports the same theory. The rule in this state is that where one person for a valuable consideration makes a promise to another to pay the debt of that other to a third person, such third person may maintain an action in his own name upon the promise and against the promisor alone. Hart v. Bogle, 88 Wash 125, 152 P. 1010; ...