Merchants Finance Co. v. Davidek

Washington Supreme Court

Merchants Finance Co. v. Davidek

400 P.2d 291, 65 Wash. 2d 956, 1965 Wash. LEXIS 807

CourtWashington Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 25, 1965

DocketNo. 37759

StatusPublished

This text of 400 P.2d 291 (Merchants Finance Co. v. Davidek) 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

Merchants Finance Co. v. Davidek, 400 P.2d 291, 65 Wash. 2d 956, 1965 Wash. LEXIS 807 (Wash. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an action to recover the unpaid balance on a food freezer sold to the defendants in conjunction with one of the familiar food plan contracts. Defendants maintained possession of the freezer but refused to pay for it, claiming that assignment of the contract from the seller to Merchants Finance Company was not proved. The court found as a fact that the assignment had been made. Defendants appeal.

The evidence showed that two of defendants’ checks made in payment on the contract actually named the plaintiff as the payee. Thus, the court had abundant evidence to find not only proof of the assignment but that the appellants knew of it. Upon the grounds that the appellants have failed to establish that the assignments of error warrant either reversal or modification, the judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

This is an action to recover the unpaid balance on a food freezer sold to the defendants in conjunction with one of the familiar food plan contracts. Defendants maintained possession of the freezer but refused to pay for it, claiming that assignment of the contract from the seller to Merchants Finance Company was not proved. The court found as a fact that the assignment had been made. Defendants appeal.

The evidence showed that two of defendants’ checks made in payment on the contract actually named the plaintiff as the payee. Thus, the court had abundant evidence to find not only proof of the assignment but that the appellants knew of it. Upon the grounds that the appellants have failed to establish that the assignments of error warrant either reversal or modification, the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

400 P.2d 291, 65 Wash. 2d 956, 1965 Wash. LEXIS 807, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merchants-finance-co-v-davidek-wash-1965.