Lambert v. Gillette

64 P. 784, 24 Wash. 726, 1901 Wash. LEXIS 596
CourtWashington Supreme Court
DecidedApril 16, 1901
DocketNo. 3656
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 64 P. 784 (Lambert v. Gillette) 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
Lambert v. Gillette, 64 P. 784, 24 Wash. 726, 1901 Wash. LEXIS 596 (Wash. 1901).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In 1893, Mary Lambert, one of the plaintiffs, employed the firm of Fenton, Henley & Fenton, attorneys, to collect an account against defendant' Gillette. They commenced suit, and procured judgment ón the account, had execution issued thereupon, and made various attempts to levy upon property. The only property discovered liable for the judgment was a city lot in Spokane, which was incumbered by a mortgage apparently of much greater value than the lot, and no further attempt to collect the judgment seems to have been made by the attorneys, when, in the year 1896, the judgment lien on the lot was satisfied by one of the attorneys mentioned. Thereafter, for a consideration much less than the mortgage, the lot was conveyed by defendant Gillette to defendant Keiley, the mortgagee receiving a small sum in satisfaction of the mortgage. Thereafter plaintiff Lambert, by her present counsel, procured an execution upon her judgment against Gillette, levied upon and sold the lot in question, and secured a sheriff’s deed therefor, and conveyed to the plaintiff Lewis a one-half interest in the lot. This suit was then instituted to quiet the title. The court found that the act of the attorney in releasing the lien of the judgment was ratified by the plaintiff Lambert; that defendant Keiley and wife had entered into possession and for some years occupied the lot and erected valuable improvements thereon, and that plaintiff had made no objections during the progress of such improvements; and quieted the title in the defendants Keiley and wife.

We have examined the testimony, and are satisfied with the finding of the superior court, and its judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

Mitchell v. Kitsap County
797 P.2d 516 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
64 P. 784, 24 Wash. 726, 1901 Wash. LEXIS 596, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lambert-v-gillette-wash-1901.