Dart v. McDonald

Citations

• 107 Wash. 537
• 182 P. 628

Syllabus

<p>Conspiracy (7)—To Defraud — Evidence-—-Sufficiency. Under the rule that circumstances to establish a conspiracy to defraud must be inconsistent with a lawful purpose and that it is necessary to show that the person entered into an agreement with the other conspirators to accomplish the objects, a married woman’s participation in the conspiracy of her husband and others, to defraud in obtaining subscriptions to valueless corporate stock, is not sufficiently established by evidence that, three or four years after the subscriptions were obtained, she did some business errands at the request of her husband relating to collections and was connected with a few subsequent transactions of like effect, and expressed an opinion that the subscribers would make considerable profit, it appearing that she took no part in the immediate transaction, and had only such knowledge as she derived from her husband.</p>