Thomas Eugene Grady

This case involved an appeal from a divorce decree concerning the custody of two young children, child support payments, and the division of marital property. The Supreme Court of Washington affirmed the trial court's decision, awarding custody to the mother with visitation rights including summer custody to the father, setting support at $130 per month reduced upon remarriage, and dividing the property between the parties. The court reasoned that both parents were fit, and visitation was necessary to allow the children to maintain a relationship with their father and prevent alienation of affections. The support amount was deemed appropriate based on the children's needs, and the property division complied with statutory requirements for being just and equitable.

family lawproperty

The case concerned whether a company engaged in direct sales of freezers was required to pay contributions under the 1945 employment security act on commissions paid to its salesmen. The commissioner assessed the company after finding the salesmen performed personal services for remuneration while subject to the company's control and not engaged in independently established businesses of their own. The appeal tribunal and commissioner upheld the assessment, but the superior court reversed on the ground that the salesmen were not in employment; the Supreme Court reversed the superior court and reinstated the assessment. Applying the statutory definitions, the court concluded that the salesmen met the broad definition of employment because they were not free from the company's direction and failed to satisfy all three exceptions in RCW 50.04.140.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involved plaintiffs seeking damages for injuries from a car accident caused by Steele, an employee of defendant Inland Motor Freight who was driving a company car while working as a freight solicitor. The jury found Steele negligent and acting within the scope of his employment, leading to a verdict against the company. The court reversed the judgment, concluding that Steele's personal trip to test rifle sights for a future hunting outing with customers was too remote from his job duties to support a finding that he was acting in the course of employment at the time of the collision. The case was remanded for dismissal.

torts & liabilitylabor & employment

This case involved a dispute over Grays Harbor County's handling of real estate acquired through a 1939 tax sale, including a 1952 timber-sale contract and a 1953 deed conveying the property to the county itself, with instructions to direct income to the county's current expense fund rather than apportioning it under RCW 84.64.230. The Ocosta Consolidated School District sued to set aside the deed and enjoin the improper disbursement of funds. The trial court overruled a demurrer, and after the county declined to plead further, entered judgment for the plaintiff; the Washington Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that RCW 84.64.230 and 84.64.320 are mandatory special statutes that do not permit diversion of such funds or the self-deed transaction, which did not serve the statute's purpose of enabling sales to governmental agencies for public use, and that a direct superior court action was available because the commissioners were not acting under their general powers.

propertytaxesprocedure

This case involved a union member, John Mahoney, who was expelled from the Sailors' Union of the Pacific after making critical remarks at meetings about the union's alleged strike-breaking activities. Mahoney sued to overturn the expulsion, seeking reinstatement and damages for lost employment opportunities as a sailor. The Supreme Court of Washington affirmed the trial court's ruling in his favor, setting aside the expulsion order and awarding damages. The court reasoned that the expulsion deprived Mahoney of a property right in his livelihood without due process, that the union violated its own constitution by holding the trial in San Francisco rather than Seattle, and that his statements did not constitute a violation warranting expulsion under the union's rules.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

This case involved a husband's petition for divorce under Washington law after he and his wife had lived separate and apart for more than five consecutive years, with the wife counterclaiming for separate maintenance. The trial court denied the divorce, finding that the wife's residence in California with their son (due to the child's health needs) was with the husband's concurrence and did not constitute a separation. The Washington Supreme Court reversed, holding that after 1946 the son's condition no longer required the wife's presence in California, the separation became voluntary and without mutual agreement, and RCW 26.08.020(9) permits divorce based solely on five years of living apart regardless of fault or intent to dissolve the marriage. The court remanded for entry of a divorce decree while directing further proceedings on property division, alimony, and fees.

family law

The case involved a seller, New York Merchandise Co., seeking to recover the unpaid purchase price of goods sold to a community business operated by Isaac and Grayce Stout. After Isaac's death in 1950, his nonintervention will left the estate to Grayce, who probated it as executrix; notice to creditors was published in a newspaper, but the seller filed no claim against the estate before it was closed and assets distributed to Grayce. The seller argued that publication alone violated due process, that Grayce's continued operation of the business made her personally liable, and that she had assumed the debt. The court affirmed judgment for Grayce, holding that the nonclaim statute (RCW 11.40.010) is mandatory and cannot be waived, that newspaper publication satisfied due process in this context, and that no facts showed Grayce had personally assumed the obligation. The seller's failure to file a timely claim barred recovery.

procedureproperty

The case concerned the Washington Public Service Commission's revision of a common-carrier permit held by Willamette Hauling Co., an Oregon corporation authorized for intrastate irregular-route service hauling general freight in Washington. After investigations showed the company had hauled only thirty-four shipments limited to heavy machinery, steel storage tanks, and lumber over a year and had not equipped itself or held itself out to transport general freight, the commission narrowed the permit to those specific commodities. The superior court reversed the commission's order, but the Washington Supreme Court reversed that ruling and upheld the alteration. The court held that RCW 81.80.280 permits the commission to alter a permit when the holder has not conducted operations in accordance with its terms, including by failing to perform a substantial part of the authorized service, and that the statute covers both affirmative violations and nonaction.

business & regulatory

This case involved a dispute over a building construction contract in which the contractors sued the property owners for the unpaid balance and to foreclose a mechanic's lien, with a subcontractor intervening to seek similar relief. The owners defended by alleging numerous contract breaches and moved to dismiss at the close of the plaintiffs' evidence, arguing the complaint was deficient for failing to allege an architect's completion certificate and that the subcontractor's lien release was valid. The trial court denied the motions, treated the complaint as amended by the proof, found the owners had made obtaining the certificate impossible through unreasonable demands, and held the lien release invalid for lack of consideration. After the owners declined to present evidence, the court entered judgment for the plaintiffs and ordered foreclosure of the liens. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the owners' conduct excused the certificate requirement and that the release was ineffective, while remanding for determination of appellate attorney fees.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case concerned a real-estate sales contract in which the sellers sued to recover unpaid purchase installments while the buyers sought rescission, claiming an undisclosed easement for street and utility purposes constituted an encumbrance that prevented delivery of the property free of encumbrances except for a specified mortgage. The trial court entered judgment for the sellers and denied rescission. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the buyers had viewed the property multiple times, had actual notice of the graveled roadway, and should have discovered the full sixty-foot easement through reasonable inquiry, as the garage was substantially located within it. The court applied the rule that a contractual promise to convey land free of encumbrances does not extend to granted easements that are permanent, known to the buyer, or discoverable by reasonable investigation.

property

This case arose when public utility district No. 1 of Kitsap County sued several other Washington PUDs and Puget Sound Power & Light Co. in Kitsap superior court to enjoin their joint purchase of Puget's electric utilities and properties. The defendant PUDs, none of which were located in Kitsap County, moved to quash service, arguing that a statute required all suits against a PUD to be brought only in the county where that district is located. The court held that the statutory proviso addresses venue rather than jurisdiction, so the Kitsap court properly acquired personal and subject-matter jurisdiction through service and filing. Because the action was transitory and in personam, and because Puget transacted business in Kitsap County, the action could proceed there under general venue rules allowing suit where any defendant resides or does business.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the administratrix of John William Smith against Frank Yamashita and others after Smith was struck and killed by the defendants' car while crossing a street in Seattle at night. The jury returned a general verdict for the defendants, and the trial court denied the plaintiff's motion for a new trial. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly refused a jury instruction on the presumption of the decedent's due care because his act of stepping into the street in a business district violated a city ordinance and constituted negligence per se, making the presumption inapplicable. The court also upheld the instruction defining the area as a business district under the ordinance and found sufficient evidence that the decedent's contributory negligence was a proximate cause of the accident.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved General Electric Company (as successor to Du Pont) seeking a refund of over $938,000 in Washington business and occupation taxes paid on its manufacturing of fissionable material at the Hanford plant under a contract with the Atomic Energy Commission. The trial court ruled for GE, and the Washington Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that GE's activities under the contract were not its own business but instead constituted activities of the AEC itself, which the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 expressly exempts from state taxation. This conclusion followed from the contract terms making GE an agent spending federal funds under detailed federal control, the broad interpretation of "activities" in the federal statute by the U.S. Supreme Court in Carson v. Roane-Anderson Co., and the U.S. Constitution's supremacy clause binding state courts to that federal interpretation.

business & regulatorytaxesfederal power

In this case, King County sued to quiet title to land it purchased in 1914 from Commercial Waterway District No. 1 after the district later challenged the sale's validity. The district contended that errors in the property description in its resolution and notices, along with a failure to offer all described land for sale, rendered the transaction void under statutory procedures for municipal land sales. The court held that the district was estopped from denying the sale's validity because it possessed the power to sell the property and acted in a proprietary capacity, even though procedural requirements were not strictly followed. The trial court's decree quieting title in the county's favor was affirmed on this basis.

propertyprocedure

This case involved homeowners who sued the operators of a drive-in theater for creating a private nuisance through noise from vehicle traffic at the theater's entrance and exit, as well as from changing an advertising sign, which interfered with the use and enjoyment of their nearby residence. The trial court instructed the jury on the standards for nuisance under Washington statutes, and the jury returned a verdict awarding damages to the homeowners based on the depreciation in property value and the substantial disturbance caused. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that although the theater was lawfully zoned and operated as a business, its manner of operation—particularly the ingress and egress of patrons—violated nuisance statutes by unreasonably and substantially annoying the plaintiffs' comfort and repose. The court rejected arguments that the zoning shielded the defendants or that damages should be assessed across all of the plaintiffs' property holdings rather than just the affected residential portion.

propertytorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involved a juvenile court proceeding to determine whether Cathy Sickles, a minor, was a dependent child due to alleged mistreatment by her mother, including physical abuse and neglect, with the father accused of failing to intervene. The juvenile court found the child dependent, made her a ward of the court, and issued an order permanently terminating the parents' custody and parental rights. On certiorari review, the Washington Supreme Court examined the record and concluded that while the dependency finding had some support, the evidence was insufficient to justify the permanent deprivation of all parental rights, particularly regarding the father's knowledge or involvement, leading to reversal of that portion of the order. The court emphasized reliance on the trial court's factual findings but noted the need for adequate factual basis for such a broad remedy under the relevant dependency statutes.

family lawprocedure

This case arose from a 1951 nighttime collision in Tacoma between an automobile driven by Alice Buckman (with passenger June Fors) and a railroad boxcar at a spur track crossing south of an intersection controlled by traffic signals; Buckman died and Fors was injured. The plaintiffs sued the railroad for negligence in failing to provide adequate warnings, but the jury returned a verdict for the defendant, which the trial court upheld by denying motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a new trial. On appeal, the Washington Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the crossing was extrahazardous due to factors including its proximity to the traffic light, infrequent use, visibility conditions, and the green signal inviting the driver to proceed, rendering the railroad's warnings (including a flagman and engine light) inadequate under the circumstances. The court also noted that the trial court should have considered evidence of similar prior accidents and that the verdict was contrary to the evidence on the warning issue.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a maternal grandmother petitioning for custody of her grandchild after the parents' parental rights were permanently terminated, with the child made a ward of the court and temporarily placed with Catholic Charities. The trial court denied custody due to the grandmother's active tuberculosis, age, reliance on public assistance, and the child's need for stable adoption placement. On review, the Washington Supreme Court held that termination of parental rights makes the grandmother the child's natural guardian with a preferential right to custody if she is found fit and capable of providing care. The court remanded for further proceedings to assess her fitness under this legal status rather than treating the child as having no natural guardian available.

family law

This case involved Ralph Zander seeking to recover on a promissory note originally executed by a partnership of Larsen, Dahl, and Thomas that had acquired assets from a receivership and later incorporated as Nesbitt Bottling Company of Tacoma. The trial court entered judgment against the individual partners and the corporation, and the Washington Supreme Court affirmed. The court found that the corporation was formed as a continuation of the partnership using the same assets and owners, with no separate consideration paid for the transfer, and that one partner had been held out publicly despite incomplete contributions. It therefore held that the corporation legally assumed the partnership's note obligations. The decision rested on principles allowing courts to disregard the corporate form when necessary to prevent injustice to third parties, as the entity was essentially the same business under a new structure.

business & regulatory

The case involved the conviction of Tom Hall for possessing cannabis americana (marijuana) under Washington law, based on plants found growing on his property. Hall challenged the conviction on grounds of a variance between the information charging possession of cannabis americana and evidence identifying the substance as cannabis sativa, as well as the admission of testimony about his prior sale of marijuana cigarettes in 1938 to prove knowledge. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the statute broadly covers cannabis americana and indica, that cannabis sativa encompasses both, and that the evidence established possession of the prohibited drug. It further ruled that the prior acts were admissible to demonstrate Hall's knowledge of the plants despite the time gap, and that the lack of a limiting instruction on the evidence's purpose was not prejudicial given the defense and facts presented.

criminal law