R. R. Thompson Estate Co. v. Weinhard
R. R. Thompson Estate Co. v. Weinhard
Opinion of the Court
This action was brought in the court below by the legal representatives of Henry Weinhard, deceased, to recover from tne Thompson Estate Company, the plaintiff in error here, the amount due on a certain promissory note lor $4,500, with interest, executed March 6, 1912, at Portland, Or., to the plaintiffs in tho action, by the Multnomah Hovel Company, Philip Gevurtz, and I. Gevurtz & Sous, a corporation. The case was tried before the court without a jury by stipulation of the parties,«resulting in findings and a judgment for the plaintiffs, and comes here by writ of error sued out by the defendant. There is no dispute about the facts, which are substantially as follows:
The Thompson Estate Company was the owner of the Multnomah Hotel in Portland, and leased it to the Multnomah Hotel Company, of
The option was duly exercised and consummated, including the execution to the Thompson Estate Company by the I. Gevurtz & Sons corporation, of the guaranty, and its note for $35,000. The evidence showed that the indebtedness of the hotel company far exceeded the
The evidence further shows that the I. Gevurtz & Sons corporation having been adjudged a bankrupt, the Thompson Estate Company presented a claim against the estate of the bankrupt which included the entire liabilities of the hotel company, including the demand of the plaintiffs on the note here sued on, basing its claim upon the $35,000 promissory note of I. Gevurtz & Sons, the agreement and sale of the stock of the hotel company, and the guaranty and indemnity by L Gevurtz & Sons against the payment of any and all indebtedness and liability of the hotel company, which claim was held by the referee in the bankruptcy proceedings to be provable, and upon which claim the Thompson Estate Company has actually received from the trustee of the estate of the bankrupt a dividend of 23 per cent, upon all such indebtedness, including the claim which plaintiffs are now seeking to recover. •
We agree with the court below that the contract of the parties must he considered as a whole, and, in the light of their acts under and in pursuance of it, that the Thompson Estate Company assumed the entire indebtedness of the hotel company, looking to the indemnity evidenced by the warranty obligation given by the I. Gevurtz & Sons corporation to reimburse it for any excess of liabilities over the $210,000 it might he obliged to pay in order to clear the hotel property of the debts incurred by the hotel company. Surely no better evidence of that understanding on the part of the Thompson Estate Company of the arrangement in question could he had than the fact that it retained in its possession the fund arising from the $35,000 note executed to it by the I. Gevurtz & Sons corporation, and by its presentation of its claim against the bankrupt estate of that corporation, including the apiounts paid out by the claimant under and in pursuance of the indemnity agreement, and including in the claim as one of its own liabilities the note here sued on, on which it has actually received, according to the record, from the trustee of the estate of the bankrupt, 23 per cent, thereof.
We think, as did the. court below, that the facts and circumstances that have been stated created a duty and implied -a promise on the part of the Thompson Estate Company to pay to the instant creditor of the hotel company similar to that it recognized in paying the other creditors of that company, which conclusion is in accord with the doctrine of the decisions of the Supreme Court of Oregon in the cases of Feldman v. McGuire, 34 Or. 310, 55 Pac. 872, and Parker v. Jeffery, 26 Or. 186, 194, 37 Pac. 712, as we understand them.
The judgment is affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- R. R. THOMPSON ESTATE CO. v. WEINHARD
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published