Hewitt v. Hewitt

226 P.2d 198, 37 Wash. 2d 727, 1951 Wash. LEXIS 372
CourtWashington Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 4, 1951
DocketNo. 31288
StatusPublished

This text of 226 P.2d 198 (Hewitt v. Hewitt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hewitt v. Hewitt, 226 P.2d 198, 37 Wash. 2d 727, 1951 Wash. LEXIS 372 (Wash. 1951).

Opinion

Hamley, J.

The question presented is more factual than legal: Did the plaintiffs establish a cause of action? The trial court answered in the negative and entered an order of dismissal. The plaintiffs appeal.

The principal litigants are brothers, John and Henry Hewitt. We shall refer to them by their first names, and as though they were the only parties.

The name Hewitt has long been a familiar one in Tacoma. The father of John and Henry organized the Hewitt Land [728]*728Company; The two brothers succeeded him in the ownership and management of it. The depression of the 1930’s reduced them from affluence to somewhat straitened circumstances. We find them, at the beginning of this almost fantastic episode (which concerns a timber bonanza in which an $85,000 investment netted more than $1,500,000), carrying on their business from a single desk in a 10' by 10' room in a Tacoma office building. They were principally engaged in negotiating timber deals on a commission basis. Sometimes they worked together and sometimes separately, and it is admitted that there was no general partnership.

March 6, 1942, Dan Calkins, a long-time personal friend of Henry’s, came into their office and exhibited to the brothers a list of timberlands in Douglas county, Oregon, which he stated might present an opportunity for profit. This initiated a chain of events which, for John, led on, if not to fame, at least to fortune.

John secured additional information by correspondence. It developed that the timberlands were tax-title properties owned by Douglas county, Oregon, consisting of about a hundred parcels in sizes varying from forty acres to a section, and totaling almost twenty thousand acres, scattered over ten or twelve townships. Within the month (March 27, 1942), a letter addressed to John was received from the authorities of Douglas county stating that this timberland could be purchased for ninety thousand dollars. The letter stated further that, although no option was being granted, the county would not enter into negotiations for the sale of the property to any other parties for a period of sixty days, thus allowing time for an inspection of the properties.

In the meantime, Paul Barber became interested in the possibilities in these timberlands. He had worked for the Hewitt Land Company as an accountant and was acquainted with both brothers. Barber, in turn, had contacted and interested John A. Markham. (To avoid confusion, inasmuch as we are referring to John Hewitt as John, we will refer to John A. Markham as Markham.)

It was decided that John should proceed to Oregon and [729]*729inspect the timber. Before leaving for Oregon, John wrote and signed the following letter to Calkins:

“I have a letter from the Commissioners of Douglas County Oregon wherein they have agreed, for a purchase price of $90,000.00 to give me a Q C Deed to what is known as the old Neenah-Oregon Timber Co. lands, which they claim was acquired by tax foreclosure.
“You and Henry Hewitt and I have undetermined shares in this option or right to buy or whatever it is and it may be that we will have to share these equities with others who may do the work in acquiring these lands and who may put up the funds for doing so.
“The right to acquire these lands expires on May 27th 1942, in the meantime I expect to look over these properties and if they are not worth while purchasing we will know soon and if we decide they are worth while purchasing we will then have a meeting and all agree how we are to apportion these interests.”

The letter was co-signed by Henry and, in a corner of it is written, “Accepted D. D. Calkins.” As of that time, the letter epitomized the situation; they had “undetermined shares in this option or right to buy or whatever it is.” The apportioning of the interests of the parties depended, of necessity, upon future developments, particularly upon the terms which could be made with those “who may put up the funds.”

John established a camp site and spent forty days inspecting many of the scattered parcels. He testified that he had received eighty-five dollars from Henry and fifty dollars from Barber for expenses while making this examination, and that he spent some five hundred dollars.

Shortly before the end of the sixty-day period, Henry and Barber joined John at his camp and spent about three days inspecting various parcels. The three of them then went to the county seat of Douglas county and secured an oral agreement to extend the time within which they might purchase, provided they would make a payment of two hundred fifty dollars. They returned to the camp and had a discussion which lasted far into the next morning, with Henry leaving the meeting in anger. He returned home [730]*730that day, and John and Barber remained for a further examination of the timberlands.

The versions of what transpired at that meeting are divergent, but they all agree that there was discussion as to what share each of the parties was to take in the venture. It is conceded that John at all times insisted that he would take twenty-five per cent. Henry admits that he considered taking as much as fifteen per cent. He testified, “I could probably have forced my wife to dig up that 15%.”

There is no doubt that Henry could have had a fifteen per cent interest at that time, had he desired it and been able to finance it. As of that date, Markham had agreed to put up forty per cent of the amount required and, on satisfactory security, to carry John for another twenty-five per cent. Barber testified that, at that time, Henry could have had fifteen per cent because he, Barber, was not particularly concerned about the percentage he would take. It was also made clear that there were to be no “free rides,” and that anyone who came in on the venture would have to pay his share.

It seems fair to conclude from the testimony and from letters written at a later date, that Henry was angry because they were buying the timberland, when he had envisioned a sale on the basis of an option and a quick profit without any investment; and he was further disgusted at his brother’s insistence on twenty-five per cent, when, as he phrased it, John “couldn’t have dug up a cracked dime.” Henry also ridiculed the idea that John could put up any security which would be satisfactory to Markham.

Despite Henry’s low opinion of John’s cash and credit standing, the latter did acquire, through Markham’S assistance, a twenty-five per cent interest, for which John later paid in full. It is a share in this twenty-five per cent of the one million five hundred thousand dollars realized or to. be realized from the sale of this timberland that Henry seeks by the present proceeding, on the theory of a joint adventure.

To continue the chronological narrative: Following the meeting at which the brothers so violently disagreed, Barber [731]*731paid Douglas county the two hundred fifty dollars (for two hundred dollars of which he was reimbursed, fifty dollars by each of the Hewitts and one hundred dollars by Markham) which had been agreed upon as the consideration for an extension agreement. The extension agreement was in the form of a letter from Douglas county dated May 28,1942, addressed, as the original letter had been, to John Hewitt.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Bringgold v. Stucky
202 N.W. 739 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1925)
Shrader v. Downing
140 P. 558 (Washington Supreme Court, 1914)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
226 P.2d 198, 37 Wash. 2d 727, 1951 Wash. LEXIS 372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hewitt-v-hewitt-wash-1951.