Bender v. Ragan
Cases that cite this one
14 later published cases cite this decision.
- Blake Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Saxon (Wash. Ct. App. 1999)
- Enslen v. Alabama Department of Transportation (Ala. Civ. App. 2016)
- State v. Whetstone (Wash. 1948)
- In re Brickey's Estate (Wash. 1930)
- Beeler v. Pacific Fruit & Produce Co. (Wash. 1925)
- Pacific Power & Light Co. v. White (Wash. 1918)
- Clough v. Monro (Wash. 1915)
- Singer v. Guy Investment Co. (Wash. 1910)
- Judge Linda F. Coats v. State of Alabama (Ala. 2026)
- Jordan Ray Henshaw v. State of Alabama (Ala. 2026)
- Arias v. Torres Córdova de Luff (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1955)
- Arias v. Torres Córdova de Luff (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1955)
- Cayuga Linen & Cotton Mills, Inc. v. Crédito y Ahorro Ponceño (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1930)
- Cayuga Linen & Cotton Mills, Inc. v. Crédito y Ahorro Ponceño (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1930)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The plaintiffs brought this action to restrain a threatened execution sale of certain real estate in Kitsap county, and, also, to quiet title against a certificate of sale already issued. Issues of fact were joined, and a trial resulted in a judgment as prayed for in the complaint. The defendants have appealed.
The only issue in the case at the trial was whether a deed executed by the grantors was delivered to respondents prior to the filing of a judgment against the grantors in Kitsap county. The trial court found that the deed was delivered prior to the filing of the judgment, and that the respondents were innocent purchasers for value. After reading the evidence, we are satisfied that the court could not have found otherwise. The notary who took the acknowledgment testified that the deed was left with him for the respondents.
Appellants argue, and cite some authorities to the effect, that agency cannot be proved by the declaration of the agent. That rule has no relevancy to this case, because here the. agent himself testified directly as to his authority. He was competent to so testify, as much as the principal. This is not a case where the declarations of the agent are sought to be proved by third persons to show agency. The best evidence of that fact is the testimony of the agent or the principal. In this case we have the evidence of both to the same effect.
Appellants complain because a personal judgment was entered for costs against the sheriff. It is claimed that the sheriff is only a nominal party. While it is no doubt true that the sheriff here is acting at the instance of the judgment creditor, he is the real party in the trespass in this case, and is, therefore, primarily liable. Scott v. McGraw, 3 Wash. 675, 29 Pac. 260. This case is not controlled in this respect by the rule in mandamus cases cited by appellants, where the judge of the court is a mere nominal party and, therefore, not liable for costs.
We find no error in the record, and the judgment must therefore be affirmed.
All Concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.