Lovell v. Haye

Citations

• 85 Wash. 109
• 147 P. 632
• 1915 Wash. LEXIS 1258

Syllabus

<p>Sales — Sufficiency of Evidence — Promise to Pay. An original promise of defendant to pay for goods sold and delivered to another, his tenant, is sufficiently established where the evidence shows that the tenant was farming certain lands of defendant on an agreement to share the crops; that the tenant was indebted to a storekeeper for groceries and farm implements, and had been refused further credit; that the defendant paid what was due on the groceries, but refused to pay the indebtedness for the machinery, and testified that he said, “I have paid the account as I agreed, now it is up to you, what will you do,” and the storekeeper said the tenant could have such further credit as he desired; while on the other hand, the testimony of the storekeeper was that defendant told him to let the tenant have “what he wanted and he would pay him dollar for dollar,” and this testimony was corroborated hy that of the tenant and by an employee of the storekeeper, and hy the further fact that the tenant was already indebted to the amount of his own share in the crop, and it was to defendant’s interest to see that he was supplied with goods necessary to carry on harvest operations, so that the defendant would be able to realize his half share in the crops.</p> <p>Frauds, Statute of — -Promise to Pay Debt of Another — Original or Collateral Promise — -Evidence. A promise to pay the debt of another for goods sold is an original, and not a collateral one, where it was a direct promise to pay the debt “dollar for dollar,” without qualification or reservation; and the fact that the goods were not charged to the promisor, but to the original debtor, would not in itself be sufficient to overcome a direct promise.</p> <p>Appeal — Review—Findings. Upon trials de novo on appeal, the findings of the lower court are not equivalent to the verdict of a jury and thus entitled to stand, if there is evidence to support them, but it is the duty of the supreme court not to follow them when again