Case Name: Samuel H. Ver Planck, Respondent, v. Charles Lee et al., Defendants, A. P. McClaine et ux., Appellants
Court: Washington Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Washington
Decision Date: 1898-06-18
Citations: 19 Wash. 492
Docket Number: No. 2942
Parties: Samuel H. Ver Planck, Respondent, v. Charles Lee et al., Defendants, A. P. McClaine et ux., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Washington Reports
Volume: 19
Pages: 492–493

Head Matter:
[No. 2942.
Decided June 18, 1898.]
Samuel H. Ver Planck, Respondent, v. Charles Lee et al., Defendants, A. P. McClaine et ux., Appellants.
MORTGAGE — ASSUMPTION BY AGENT — RATIFICATION.
Although a deed of mortgaged premises containing an assumption of the mortgage debt may have been taken by an agent of the grantees without their knowledge or consent, the action of the agent must be regarded as subsequently ratified, when it appears that the grantees afterwards made payments of interest on the debt and conveyed the premises by warranty deed, covenanting th'at they were the owners in fee simple.
Appeal from Superior Court, Bang County. — Hon. William Hickman Moore, Judge.
Affirmed.
Sharpstein <& Blattner, for appellants.
II. H. Blackburn, for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The question presented by the appeal in this case is whether the appellants are liable to a personal judgment for the amount óf a debt secured by a mortgage upon land conveyed to them by the mortgagor, and is entirely one of fact. It is contended that the deed to the appellants which assumed the mortgage was taken by an agent without their knowledge and authority. So far .as the time the deed was taken is concerned this may be conceded, and still we are of the opinion that the judgment should be affirmed. It clearly appears that the appellants knew thereafter that they were the owners of -the real estate for they subsequently conveyed the same by their warranty deed covenanting that they were the owners in fee simple; it appears by the proofs, especially by a letter of McClaine, the husband, that the appellants assumed and agreed to pay the mortgage debt. Whether they knew of the assumption clause in the deed at the time-it was executed or not, they knew it afterwards and made-certain payments of interest tbereon and ratified it beyond all question.
Affirmed.