Case ID: wash_67/html/0311-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Parker, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 10042.
    Department One.
    February 26, 1912.]
    B. A. Lewis, Respondent, v. United Collieries Company, Appellant.
      
    
    Money Loaned — Evidence—Sufficiency. A judgment for money loaned is sustained by evidence that tbe plaintiff loaned tbe money, either to defendant or one W., and placed it in tbe bands of W. to pay defendant’s obligations, and that it was so used, altbougb there was conflict involving tbe credibility of witnesses as to whether tbe loan was made upon tbe credit of defendant or W.
    Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Chapman, J., entered July 5, 1911, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, in an action for money loaned.
    Affirmed.
    
      Smith ¿J- Cole, for appellant.
    
      Peters fy Powell, for respondent.
    
      
      Reported in 121 Pac. 443.
    
   Parker, J.

This is an action to recover the sum of $600, the amount of a loan alleged to have been made by the plaintiff to the defendant. Upon a trial before the court without a jury, findings and judgment were rendered in favor of the plaintiff, from which the defendant has appealed.

Nothing is presented here save the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings and judgment. There is no question but that, at the time of making the loan, it was made by respondent, either to appellant or to one Williams. The evidence shows almost conclusively that the money was loaned and placed in Williams’ hands for the express purpose of paying obligations of appellant, and that it was immediately thereafter so used by Williams. There is conflict in the evidence as to Williams being the agent of appellant for the purpose of the loan, and also as to whether or not the loan was made upon the personal credit of Williams or upon the credit of appellant. This conflict involves the credibility of witnesses. A careful reading of all the evidence convinces us that we would not be warranted in disturbing the findings of the trial court, especially in view of the fact that the money was actually used for appellant’s benefit. We deem it unnecessary to review the evidence here. The judgment is affirmed.

Dunbar, C. J., Crow, and Chadwick, JJ., concur.