Allen v. Farmers & Merchants Bank

Citations

• 76 Wash. 51
• 135 P. 621
• 1913 Wash. LEXIS 1785

Syllabus

<p>Evidence — Written Contract — Contradiction — Oral Contemporaneous Agreement. Where a bank had, without authority, used $3,-000 of plaintiff’s deposit in a transaction with his brother, a written contract between the three parties providing that the bank would pay the amount to plaintiff if certain real estate, conveyed to the bank by the brother in full liquidation of his own debt, could be sold within a year for $15,000, is a complete agreement on its face, so as to preclude evidence of an oral contemporaneous agreement that the plaintiff was to forfeit all right to the $3,000 if the land could not be sold as contemplated in the written agreement.</p> <p>Contracts — Consideration—Agreement to Perform — Legal Obligations. Where a bank had, without authority, used $3,000 of plaintiff’s deposit in a transaction with his brother, and a written contract between the three parties provided that the bank would pay the sum to the plaintiff, in case certain real estate, conveyed to the bank by the brother in full liquidation of his own debt, could be sold within a year for $15,000, an oral agreement on the plaintiff’s part to forfeit the $3,000 in case no such sale could be made, was not supported by a sufficient consideration; since there was no evidence that the brother owed the bank anything or that the plaintiff had agreed to pay any such debt, and the only consideration for an extension of time to pay the deposit was the bank’s agreement to pay Interest; payment of the deposit being nothing more than the bank was already bound to do.</p> <p>Compbomise and Settlement — Consideration. Where there is no doubt as to a party’s right, a compromise is not a sufficient consideration for a contingent waiver of that right.</p> <p>Appeal — Record—Review—Instructions. Where the record contained only .part of the instructions, which were unobjectionable as far as they went, it will be assumed on appeal that other instructions correctly covered the law of the case in other partic