Sanders v. Main & Winchester

42 P. 122, 12 Wash. 665, 1895 Wash. LEXIS 236
CourtWashington Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 21, 1895
DocketNo. 1947
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 42 P. 122 (Sanders v. Main & Winchester) 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
Sanders v. Main & Winchester, 42 P. 122, 12 Wash. 665, 1895 Wash. LEXIS 236 (Wash. 1895).

Opinion

The opinion of the .court was delivered by

Hoyt, C. J.

By this action the appellant sought to have a certain mortgage in favor of respondents declared fraudulent as against the creditors of the mortgagor on the ground that it was not made solely for the benefit of the mortgagees, but was intended as a cover to aid the mortgagor in delaying the claims of his other creditors. The cause was heard upon the pleadings and proofs, and the finding of the superior court was against the claim of the appellant. A careful examination of the record has convinced us that no other finding could have been i’ightfully made. We have been unable to find anything in the proofs which tended to show that the mortgage was not made by the mortgagor and accepted by the mortgagees, in the best of faith, for the purposes appearing upon its face. There was some testimony tending to show that some time after the mortgage was made there was a consent on the part of the mortgagees that the time in [667]*667which some of the installments were to be paid should be extended. It also appeared that the mortgagees consented to the payment of certain small sums which were being urgently pressed against the mortgagor, hut the mortgage having been made in good faith was not rendered fraudulent by these transactions.

The facts proven bring the case within the rule announced by this court in Warren v. His Creditors, 3 Wash. 48 (28 Pac. 257), and Ephraim v. Kelleher, 4 Wash. 243 (29 Pac. 985).

The judgment must be affirmed.

Anders, Scott and Dunbar, JJ., concur.

Gordon, J., not sitting.

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

Related

Keyes v. Sabin
172 P. 835 (Washington Supreme Court, 1918)
Nason & Co. v. Stack
142 P. 477 (Washington Supreme Court, 1914)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
42 P. 122, 12 Wash. 665, 1895 Wash. LEXIS 236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanders-v-main-winchester-wash-1895.