Pickford v. Borland
Citations
- 76 Wash. 339
- 136 P. 128
- 1913 Wash. LEXIS 1817
Syllabus
<p>Appeal — Decisions Appealable — Amount in Controvebsy — Interest. Tbe original amount in controversy determining tbe appeal-ability of a judgment, includes interest, when recoverable, from tbe due date to tbe date wben tbe action is commenced.</p> <p>Appeal — Record—Exceptions. Exceptions to findings of fact and conclusions of law, taken to each finding and conclusion separately by number, are sufficient, without stating tbe basis or reasons for tbe exceptions.</p> <p>Evidence — Written Contracts — Parol Evidence — Bill of Sale. Where a conditional bill of sale recited tbe consideration and provided tbat the vendor was to receive a deferred payment of $430 with interest within sixty days, tbe vendor cannot, in tbe absence of any allegation of fraud or mistake, show by parol evidence tbat there were further deferred payments not mentioned in tbe bill of sale, represented by the notes of third persons, who were the real purchasers, and that the vendee held title in trust to secure such further payments; since the writing was unambiguous and could not be varied by parol, there is in this state no vendor’s lien on personal property in the absence of a contract to that effect, and the bill of sale limiting the security to $430 was a waiver of a lien for any further sum.</p> <p>Sales — Conditional Sales — Contract—Reformation—Warranty —Estoppel. Where defendant advanced $800 of the purchase price of fixtures and a stock of goods, and as security took a conditional bill of sale, reciting a consideration of $800, with a deferred payment of $430, the vendor is not entitled to have the bill of sale reformed to show further deferred payments of $200 evidenced by notes of the parties for whom the stock was purchased, where defendant had no knowledge of such additional consideration; since the vendor is estopped by his contract and warranty from claiming a lien for more than $430, as against the defendant.</p> <p>Sales — Conditional Sales — Warranty—Incumbrances — Taxes. Wher
Judges: Ellis
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
2 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- State v. Snohomish CountyWashington Supreme Court· 1912-12-16· cited 44×
- Davis v. BartzWashington Supreme Court· 1911-10-24· cited 33×
- Prince v. PrinceWashington Supreme Court· 1911-08-11· cited 30×
- City of Puyallup v. LakinWashington Supreme Court· 1907-01-28· cited 28×
- Ingham v. Harper & SonWashington Supreme Court· 1912-12-13· cited 23×
- Allen v. Farmers & Merchants BankWashington Supreme Court· 1913-10-10· cited 21×
- Klickitat Warehouse Co. v. Klickitat CountyWashington Supreme Court· 1906-03-15· cited 20×
- Burrows v. KinsleyWashington Supreme Court· 1902-03-17· cited 8×
- Lewis Construction Co. v. King CountyWashington Supreme Court· 1910-12-01· cited 7×
- Hallidie Co. v. Washington Brick, Lime & Manufacturing Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1912-09-03· cited 5×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.