Taylor v. Ewing
Citations
- 74 Wash. 214
- 132 P. 1009
- 1913 Wash. LEXIS 2023
Syllabus
<p>Contracts — Construction—Evidence—Sueeiciency. A settlement agreement between a failing debtor and a trustee for creditors whereby the trustee agreed to get assignments of the claims, held, on conflicting evidence, to cover only merchandise claims, where the debtor’s attorney objected to the only claim other than merchandise claims as having been paid and being “for rent.”</p> <p>Contracts — Perbormancb ob Breach. A settlement agreement between a failing debtor and a trustee for creditors whereby the trustee agreed to secure assignments of all merchandise claims, is substantially performed, where it appears that there were claims of more than forty creditors residing in many states aggregating $12,000, and assignments were procured of all claims except one for $366.67 which was procured by wire during the progress of the trial, and one for $48 the amount of which was tendered and paid into court.</p> <p>Contracts — -Mutuality. A settlement agreement between a failing debtor and a trustee for creditors is not lacking in mutuality, where it appears that it was agreed that the trustee should obtain assignments of the merchandise claims, and that pending bankruptcy proceedings should be dismissed and the debtor put in possession of the stock of goods, which was done.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- noting that “use of the word ‘shall’ creates an imperative obligation unless a different legislative intent can be discerned” (citing State v. Bryan, 93 Wn.2d 177, 606 P.2d 1228 (1980))
- interpreting Washington’s capacity statute to mean age at the time of commission
- \the defendant was less than 3 months from the age at which capacity is presumed to exist\
- noting that \ use of the word ` shall' creates an imperative obligation unless a different legislative intent can be discerned \
- record contained clear and convincing evidence to rebut statutory presumption of incapacity
- RCW 7.68.035 applies to juvenile proceedings and the application is not discretionary
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Main
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.