65 Wn.2d 955, LESLIE M. MEYERS, Respondent, v. WAYNE L. ESHELMAN et al., Appellants
[No. 37598. Department One. Supreme Court March 25, 1965.]
LESLIE M. MEYERS, Respondent, v. WAYNE L. ESHELMAN et al.,
Appellants.*
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Okanogan County, No. 16099, Robert J. Murray, J., entered October 29, 1963. Affirmed.
Cross actions on a promissory note and for fraud. Defendants appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
James R. Thomas and Wicks, Thomas & Ellis, for appellants.
John Goldmark and Mansfield & Goldmark, for respondent.
PER CURIAM. -
This is a suit on a promissory note made by defendants (appellants) to plaintiff (respondent.)
Defendants admitted the execution and delivery of the note and, as an affirmative defense, allege partial failure of consideration for the note in that a portion of the consideration was a bonus payment for registered cattle in the amount of $80 per head for the number of at least 125 cows so registered with the American Hereford Association, and that papers for only 102 cows purchased by the defendants were delivered to the defendants. Defendants also allege an offset against any sum or sums due on account of the promissory note by reason of the loss of value of the calf crop for the year 1961 from plaintiff's failure to deliver to defendants the necessary sire information to allow the calf crop to be registered with the American Hereford Association.
The cross claim of defendants for damages is based on the fraud of the plaintiff with regard to the sale of irrigated hay land.
Parol evidence was admissible to prove the integrated agreement between the parties with reference to the cattle. The evidence sustains the findings of the trial court that there was no partial failure of consideration and also that defendants are not entitled to an offset.
The court's finding that there was no fraud with regard to the sale of land is sustained by the evidence.
Upon the ground that the defendants have failed to demonstrate that the assignments of error warrant reversal, the judgment is affirmed.
*Reported in 400 P. (2d) 295.
65 Wn.2d 956, MERCHANTS FINANCE COMPANY, Respondent, v. MILTON R. DAVIDEK et al., Appellants SCHAAKE PACKING COMPANY, INC., et al., Respondents, v. E. F. CROSHAW et al., Appellants
[No. 37759. Department One. Supreme Court March 25, 1965.]
MERCHANTS FINANCE COMPANY, Respondent, v. MILTON R. DAVIDEK
et al., Appellants.*
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 597943, David C. Hunter, J. Pro Tem., entered April 30, 1964. Affirmed.
Action on a contract of sale. Defendants appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
Murray J. Anderson (of Lee, Krilich & Anderson), for appellants.
Kleinberg, Young & Hoff, by Victor V. Hoff, for respondent.
PER CURIAM. -
This is an action to recover the unpaid balance on a food freezer sold to the defendants in conjunction with one of the familiar food plan contracts. Defendants maintained possession of the freezer but refused to pay for it, claiming that assignment of the contract from the seller to Merchants Finance Company was not proved. The court found as a fact that the assignment had been made. Defendants appeal.
The evidence showed that two of defendants' checks made in payment on the contract actually named the plaintiff as the payee. Thus, the court had abundant evidence to find not only proof of the assignment but that the appellants knew of it. Upon the grounds that the appellants have failed to establish that the assignments of error warrant either reversal or modification, the judgment is affirmed.