Joseph A. Mallery

The case concerned the estate of John Frank Wittman, who had executed a recorded community property agreement with his wife Sadie in 1949 providing that all their property would pass to the survivor upon either's death. After John's death in 1959, his will (which left legacies to several relatives) was challenged by those legatees, who argued that Sadie's earlier will and the couple's actions showed the agreement had been abandoned or rescinded. The trial court found that neither spouse knew of the other's will and that the agreement had never been altered or revoked by mutual consent. The Supreme Court of Washington affirmed, holding that a valid rescission requires a meeting of the minds, that unilateral wills do not constitute rescission or repudiation without knowledge and assent, and that the agreement therefore controlled distribution of the property to Sadie.

family lawproperty

In State v. Thompson, an 18-year-old defendant appealed his conviction for second-degree murder after he was found guilty of killing Mrs. Tussing during an attempted sexual assault. The case centered on whether the trial court properly admitted detailed evidence of the defendant's separate attempted rape of an 11-year-old girl earlier the same evening, which was offered to prove intent and identity in the murder. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence was relevant for those limited purposes and that a jury instruction adequately restricted its use. The court reasoned that the probative value outweighed any prejudice, as the facts helped establish the defendant's actions and state of mind near the time and place of the crime.

criminal law

This case concerned whether a worker injured while clearing land for his brother's one-time sale preparation was eligible for workers' compensation benefits under Washington law. The Department of Labor and Industries denied the claim, arguing the land-clearing activity was not a business, but the superior court reversed, and the Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the employer was engaged in extrahazardous work as a business because the operation had a profit motive from the land sale and involved a four-person payroll, satisfying the statutory definitions of employer and workman even though it was not the employer's primary or ongoing activity. The statute requires no minimum duration for an activity to qualify as a business, and the profit-seeking purpose distinguished it from personal or incidental tasks.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a contract dispute where the plaintiffs agreed to transport and erect government surplus buildings for the defendants' radar station construction project in Alaska but failed to complete delivery on time. The court held that the defendants were entitled to judgment on the plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract and conversion because the contract provided for the passage of title to the buildings as liquidated damages upon non-performance, which occurred automatically after the navigation opening date. Although the defendants breached by taking over the work without proper notice, the plaintiffs failed to prove any actual damages or loss of profits from that breach.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case is a follow-up to prior guardianship proceedings involving a minor child whose mother died in Washington while visiting her sister, Mrs. Manlowe; the father, a Hawaii resident, opposed the sister's efforts to become guardian after the child was brought to Washington. Mrs. Manlowe obtained a voluntary nonsuit without prejudice in the guardianship action and removed the child to California, prompting the father's appeal solely on the ground that the trial court should have imposed terms such as costs as a condition of the nonsuit. The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to impose terms, because the nonsuit allowed Mrs. Manlowe to avoid an adjudication that would have restored custody to the father, which qualified as affirmative relief under Rule 41.08W, and because she had chosen to litigate in Washington rather than Hawaii. The case was remanded for the father to prove his litigation expenses, with a judgment for those amounts to be entered as terms upon the nonsuit order.

family lawprocedure

This case involved a personal injury claim by plaintiff Mrs. Cole, who tripped on a wooden 'bull rail' in the parking lot of a supermarket operated by defendants McGhie and owned by defendants Fleming, alleging inadequate lighting and visibility created a hazard. The trial court dismissed the claims against the owners and the jury returned a verdict for the operators; plaintiffs appealed. On review, the Washington Supreme Court set aside the judgment and ordered a new trial. The court reasoned that the trial judge's arranged jury view of the scene, which included placing cars to recreate shadows and directing jurors to walk the area after they had heard extensive testimony about the rail, constituted a prejudicial experiment likely to influence the verdict because it did not replicate the plaintiff's unawareness of the obstacle.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a damages claim arising from a motor vehicle collision in Spokane between a bus and a car, where the plaintiff received a $2,500 jury verdict. The trial court granted a new trial limited to the amount of damages, ruling that liability was established as a matter of law and there was no contributory negligence. On appeal, the court modified the order to require a full new trial on all issues. The reasoning was that the evidence on contributory negligence was conflicting and for the jury to decide, the low verdict amount indicated a possible compromise on liability, and precedent requires that new trials limited to damages are improper when liability is disputed.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a dispute over insurance coverage after the plaintiff paid a judgment stemming from an automobile collision while driving his son-in-law's car, which he had been using regularly for business. The plaintiff's policy with the defendant included coverage for use of other automobiles but excluded vehicles furnished for regular use to the insured. The trial court dismissed the complaint based on that exclusion, but the Washington Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the action. The court held that the specific trip to repair the car, which occurred with special authorization and was not part of the routine business use, fell outside the regular-use exclusion, following the reasoning of a similar California decision.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case involved a Washington resident suing a California corporation and its employee for personal injuries from an automobile accident. The plaintiffs commenced the action over two years later and attempted service on the nonresident defendants by leaving process with the Secretary of State and mailing notices, but the mailings were returned undelivered; notices sent to a former bankruptcy trustee and company president were also ineffective. The trial court granted the defendants' motion to quash the summons. The appellate court affirmed, reasoning that the nonresident motorist service statute requires strict compliance including proof of actual delivery via signed return receipt, no evidence showed willful evasion of process, service on the former trustee was insufficient, and requesting costs did not waive the special appearance.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved consolidated actions for declaratory judgments and fraud damages concerning ownership interests in the Trinity Court Apartments in Seattle, including a vacant lot used for parking, stock in Cherry Street Investment Co. and Tee Cee, Inc., and multiple promissory notes and escrow contracts spanning sales from 1948 to 1957 among parties including Grandey, Melgard, Frans, Edwards, McKelvie, and Hackney. The trial court found actionable fraud by Hackney against McKelvie, awarded damages including for rent shortages, and imposed related obligations, but the Washington Supreme Court reviewed conflicting evidence on stock valuations and disclosure timing. The court held that the fraud claim was not actionable because McKelvie suffered no damages, as the Tee Cee stock interest was worth $37,000 rather than the $17,000 found below once unsupported assumptions about obligations were corrected, and it modified the judgment by reducing a rent award from $2,800 to $1,700, striking the fraud damages and certain purchase and reimbursement requirements, while quieting title in Edwards to a one-half interest in the vacant lot. The core reasoning was that key trial court findings lacked record support, full disclosure occurred before contract finalization in April 1957, and Tee Cee was not required to reimburse for the vacant lot title.

propertybusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

The case was a personal injury lawsuit brought by an employee against her employer, The Firs Bible and Missionary Conference, and a volunteer driver for damages from an automobile accident on the way home from working at a ski lodge. The trial court dismissed the action at the close of the plaintiff’s case, and the Washington Supreme Court affirmed dismissal as to the volunteer driver under the state host-guest statute because the ride was without payment and only ordinary negligence was alleged. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial as to the employer, holding that the volunteer acted as the employer’s agent in performing its contractual duty to furnish transportation, so the employer remained liable for ordinary negligence and could not claim the statutory immunity that applied only to the vehicle’s owner or operator.

torts & liabilitylabor & employment

The case involved John Herbert Bonner, convicted of first degree murder in Washington after previously being adjudicated mentally ill and committed under the state's civil hospitalization laws, from which he was paroled before the crime. Bonner petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, contending that the civil adjudication deprived the criminal trial court of jurisdiction and violated federal due process. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the writ, ruling that civil mental health statutes explicitly do not govern criminal cases, which are controlled by a separate criminal insane act. The court reasoned that the legislature intended the two schemes to remain distinct, Bonner had declined to invoke the criminal act's procedures such as an insanity plea, and the trial court had independently ensured his competency to stand trial.

criminal lawcivil rights

The case involved a bankruptcy trustee seeking to recover a payment made by the bankrupt clothing store to its creditors as an illegal preference under federal bankruptcy law. The payment was made using funds borrowed from a third party specifically to settle the debt and avoid attachment during the holiday season. The court ruled that the payment did not constitute an illegal preference because the borrowed funds never became part of the bankrupt's general assets available to other creditors, as they were provided under the control of the third party solely for that purpose. Therefore, the judgment ordering repayment was reversed, except for a small amount taken from the store's cash.

business & regulatory

This case involved a dispute over ownership of a twenty-foot strip of land along the shore of Hood Canal in Kitsap County, where a plaintiff brought an action to quiet title based on adverse possession against neighboring defendants after a disagreement over brush cutting near an old fence line. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff by quieting title to the strip, and the appellate court affirmed the judgment. The court reasoned that the fence, which ran parallel to the true boundary and had long excluded others from the disputed area, provided prima facie evidence of hostile possession and dominion, even without intensive use on every sector of the land, as the ultimate fact of exclusive control rather than specific uses determines adverse possession.

property

This case is a stockholders’ derivative action by minority shareholders of Pigeon Hole Parking, Inc., seeking rescission of the corporation’s purchase of all assets of E-Z Park, Inc., which held rights to an unpatented mechanical parking invention developed by Winkler in collaboration with majority director Vaughn Sanders. The trial court dismissed the complaint after finding no fraud, no breach of fiduciary duty, and that the assets had substantial value comparable to the 102,000 shares of Pigeon Hole stock exchanged for them. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed, holding that any conflict-of-interest issue in the initial board approval was cured by subsequent ratification from a newly elected board and stockholders who had full knowledge of patentability concerns, and that minority shareholders could not override the board’s reasonable business judgment on the transaction’s value. The court also rejected claims that the invention belonged to Pigeon Hole via shop rights.

business & regulatory

In State v. Manning, the defendant was convicted of grand larceny by check after writing a bad check for $35 to an insurance agent, having no account at the bank; he appealed seeking a new trial on multiple procedural grounds. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the late service of the arrest warrant and arraignment did not affect trial fairness, as the defendant had been in continuous custody since his initial vagrancy arrest and the proper remedy for unlawful detention was habeas corpus rather than retrial. It further rejected claims regarding jury separation (which was waived by consent), delayed witness list service (with no objection, request for continuance, or shown prejudice), and compelled self-incrimination (as the reference to the defendant's felony status was a responsive answer during his own cross-examination of a witness).

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved three consolidated damage actions stemming from a rear-end automobile collision on a snowy, icy highway at Snoqualmie Pass in 1956. The plaintiffs' vehicle had stopped in traffic at the direction of a highway patrolman when it was struck by the defendant's car; the defendant claimed he faced a sudden emergency because the stopped car was hidden around a curve until he was too close to stop safely. The jury returned verdicts for the defendant, but the Washington Supreme Court reversed on appeal and remanded for a new trial. The court held that the trial judge erred in giving a sudden-emergency jury instruction because official highway maps and mathematical analysis showed the curve could not have obscured the plaintiffs' car at the short distance claimed by the defendant, rendering the emergency doctrine inapplicable. The court found no error, however, in the separate instruction on unavoidable accident, which could have been supported by the slippery road conditions.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a rear-end collision at a traffic-light controlled intersection in Yakima, Washington, where the plaintiff stopped his car abruptly upon the light turning amber, and the defendant, following closely on icy roads, struck the plaintiff's vehicle. The trial court entered judgment for the defendant after a jury found the plaintiff contributorily negligent, but the Washington Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial. The majority held that the plaintiff could not be guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law because a city ordinance granted drivers an absolute right to stop on an amber light without needing to clear the intersection, and following drivers have a duty to anticipate such stops. The court reasoned that the traffic signal's mandate takes precedence over any duty to following vehicles, and allowing a contributory negligence claim would create confusion in obeying traffic laws.

torts & liability

This case involved a dispute over the assessed value of personal property for tax purposes at a business in Whitman County, Washington. The taxpayer reported a $9,000 valuation, which the assessor sought to increase; after procedural errors invalidated an initial board adjustment, the state tax commission directed the county board of equalization to reconvene and set the value at $22,310, but a subsequent informal appeal led the commission to raise it further to $33,040. The court held that the tax commission had authority to order the board's reconvening under state law without violating the constitution's home-rule provisions on local taxation, but the assessor's letter did not constitute a valid appeal under statutory requirements, leaving the official valuation at $22,310. The decision overruled prior precedent limiting the commission's oversight role and directed modification of the trial court's judgment accordingly.

taxespropertyprocedure

In In re Brooks, the Washington Supreme Court considered an application by Robert Boland Brooks to take the state bar examination after the Board of Governors denied it on the ground that he lacked good moral character. Brooks had been convicted of a federal felony in 1943 for refusing, as a conscientious objector, to report to a Civilian Public Service Camp under the Selective Training and Service Act, and he served about twenty-two months in prison. The majority upheld the denial, adopting the Board's finding that Brooks's actions were unjustifiably defiant of federal law and holding that this reflected a continuing defect in character directly relevant to fitness for the practice of law, rather than a temporary wartime issue. The court emphasized that the inquiry concerned present character and not additional punishment for the past offense. A dissent argued that the conviction did not involve moral turpitude and lacked a rational connection to the ability to practice law.

criminal lawcivil rights