Burrows v. Williams

Citations

• 52 Wash. 278
• 100 P. 340
• 1909 Wash. LEXIS 1108

Syllabus

<p>Compromise and Settlement — Parol Evidence to Vary Writing —Burden of Proof. Parol evidence to overcome the written record of a settlement must be clear, cogent, and convincing.</p> <p>Same — Evidence — Sufficiency — Resulting Trusts. Where a partnership or profit-sharing contract was settled by the acceptance of a give or take proposition, and deeds were made to the purchasing partners by the vendor of his interests in such of the real estate as was held partly in his name, there is no clear, cogent, and convincing testimony of an oral agreement to leave out of the settlement certain other tax title lands already held in the name of the purchasers, or to overcome the presumption of a full settlement and show a resulting trust in favor of the vendor, where by his testimony the vendor claimed that such oral agreement was made because of the expectation of a decision by the supreme court respecting the tax title and the consequent uncertainty as to its value; when in fact the tax deed had just been issued and suit to set it aside was not instituted by the former owners until six months later, after which and about two years later, the supreme court sustained the tax title, and during all that time the purchasers treated the tax title lands as their own and defended the suit at their own expense, the vendor taking no interest therein, and where the two purchasers flatly contradicted the testimony of the vendor.</p>