Home/Court of Appeals of Washington/Thomas v. Osborn

Thomas v. Osborn

536 P.2d 8, 13 Wash. App. 371, 18 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 716, 88 A.L.R. 3d 898, 1975 Wash. App. LEXIS 1354
CourtCourt of Appeals of Washington
DecidedMay 5, 1975
Docket2600-1
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 536 P.2d 8 (Thomas v. Osborn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Thomas v. Osborn, 536 P.2d 8, 13 Wash. App. 371, 18 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 716, 88 A.L.R. 3d 898, 1975 Wash. App. LEXIS 1354 (Wash. Ct. App. 1975).

Opinion

Callow, J.

The plaintiff William C. Thomas filed suit alleging that (1) the defendants James H. Osborn and Bernice Osborn, his wife, refused to return a redwood table that belonged to the plaintiff, and (2) the defendants, as makers of a note payable to plaintiff, refused to pay the note when due. The defendants denied the plaintiff’s claims, asserted that the table was delivered as a gift, and that the note was not supported by consideration and was *372 obtained by misrepresentation. The defendants also counterclaimed for damages claimed to have resulted when the plaintiff added an acknowledgment to the note and recorded it.

The court entered judgment for the plaintiff after making the following findings of fact:

I
That defendants are in possession of a . . . table belonging to plaintiff, which . . . is of the value of $2,000.00, and wrongfully refused to return the ■ same
II
That'the defendants . . . did for valuable consideration make, execute and deliver to plaintiff, their . . . note a copy of which was submitted in evidence as Exhibit No. 1.
III
That the defendants . . . have failed ... to pay the promissory note, . . . and that the same, in the amount of $2,178.00 together with interest ... is presently due and payable . . .
IV
That the defendants have failed to prove their affirmative defense, counterclaim and cross-complaint herein, and that the same should be dismissed with prejudice.

The promissory note is set forth on the opposite page.

The defendants challenge on. appeal certain findings of fact, the dismissal of the affirmative defenses and counterclaims, and the award of judgment on the promissory note.

The defendants initially contend that there is insufficient evidence to support the finding that the redwood table had a value of $2,000. The record supports this finding, however, and also supports the trial court’s holding that the plaintiff never intended to. make a gift of, the table to the defendants. See Buckerfield’s Ltd. v. B.C. Goose & Duck Farm Ltd., 9 Wn. App. 220, 511 P.2d 1360 (1973). The other findings entered are also supported by the record .and we will not disturb them on appeal.

The defendants next contend that the note is subject to the defense of failure of consideration. The trial court’s

*373

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

Related

Alfarag v. United States Postal Service
W.D. Washington, 2023
In RE ESTATE OF WEGNER v. Tesche
237 P.3d 387 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2010)
Estate of Wegner v. Tesche
157 Wash. App. 554 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2010)
BNC Mortgage, Inc. v. Tax Pros, Inc.
46 P.3d 812 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2002)
Gossett v. Farmers Insurance
133 Wash. 2d 954 (Washington Supreme Court, 1997)
Gossett v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Washington
948 P.2d 1264 (Washington Supreme Court, 1997)
Sargent County Bank v. Wentworth
500 N.W.2d 862 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1993)
Swindell v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'n
409 S.E.2d 892 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1991)
First National Bank, Hettinger v. Robertson
442 N.W.2d 430 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1989)
Business Bank v. Plank
710 F. Supp. 619 (E.D. Virginia, 1989)
Citizen's National Bank of Willmar v. Taylor
368 N.W.2d 913 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1985)
Bank of Ripley v. Sadler
671 S.W.2d 454 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1984)
Gaffin v. Heymann
428 A.2d 1066 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1981)
Logan v. Central Bank of Ala., N.A.
397 So. 2d 151 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1981)
Bluffestone v. Abrahams
607 P.2d 25 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
536 P.2d 8, 13 Wash. App. 371, 18 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 716, 88 A.L.R. 3d 898, 1975 Wash. App. LEXIS 1354, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-osborn-washctapp-1975.