Zuhn v. Horst

Citations

• 100 Wash. 359
• 170 P. 1033
• 1918 Wash. LEXIS 748

Syllabus

<p>Appeal — Notice — Parties to Be Served — Sureties on Plaintiff’s Cost Bond—Dismissal. Where plaintiff, on defendant’s demand, gave a bond for costs, and secured a verdict, and defendant appealed, the failure of defendant to serve notice of appeal upon the sureties on 'the cost bond will not work a dismissal of the appeal, where defendant waives all rights against the sureties on the cost bond.</p> <p>Executors and Administrators—Claims Against Estate—Sufficiency—Variance. Under a claim against an estate for services rendered to the deceased under oral promises made in 1898 and 1905 in Illinois to compensate for services by providing a home and making a will, it is not admissible to recover upon a promise made in 1909 in Washington to compensate for services by making a will; since the demands are not the same, although made to compensate for the same services.</p> <p>Same—Claims—Presentation—Objections'—Sufficiency. Where, in an action against an administrator, the complaint was amended to cover a demand at variance with the claim filed against the estate, a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the amended complaint raises the question as to the sufficiency of the claim, in view of the statute making filing of a claim a condition precedent to action.</p> <p>Limitation of Actions—Accrual—Oral Contract. Defendant’s oral agreement to support plaintiff and give her a home in return for services is breached upon defendant’s moving away without fulfillment, and falls within the three-year statute of limitations for contracts express or implied but not in writing.</p> <p>Same—New Promise—Requisites. A new promise is not sufficient to remove the bar of the statute of limitations against an oral promise for life support, unless it is in writing as required by Rem. Code, §176; and it is immaterial that there was a sufficient consideration.</p>