Court Opinion

ID: 9792986
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:40:29.353901+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:02:17.424536
License: Public Domain

HOLMAN, J.,
concurring in part; dissenting in part.
I agree with the majority opinion that plaintiff failed to prove that it was entitled to a rescission of the agreement with defendant. There was no proof that defendant’s title to the 160 acres secured from Lottie Bode was ever impeached as the result of the suit brought against defendant by her estate. No disposition of that litigation was ever shown.
I disagree with that portion of the majority opinion which denied plaintiff’s alternative prayer for judgment on its $30,000 note given by defendant as consideration for the transfer of the California Way property in Seattle. There is no evidence that plaintiff was guilty of any conduct toward defendant which would make it inequitable or improper to enforce the contract between them. The evidence upon which the majority depends, to sustain its finding that plaintiff did not come into court with clean hands, related not to the transactions between plaintiff and defendant but, rather, to plaintiff’s transactions with the trustee in bankruptcy. I, therefore, find it unnecessary to judge that conduct.
As a result, I would give plaintiff a judgment for $30,000, as prayed for, on the note, and remand the case for the setting of attorney fees as they relate to the note.
O’Connell, C. J., and McAllister, J., join in this opinion.