65 Wn.2d 956, MERCHANTS FINANCE COMPANY, Respondent, v. MILTON R. DAVIDEK et al.,

[No. 37759. Department One.     Supreme Court     March 25, 1965.]

MERCHANTS FINANCE COMPANY, Respondent, v. MILTON R. DAVIDEK et al., Appellants.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 597943, David C. Hunter, J. Pro Tem., entered April 30, 1964. Affirmed.

Action on a contract of sale. Defendants appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

Murray J. Anderson (of Lee, Krilich & Anderson), for appellants.

Kleinberg, Young & Hoff, by Victor V. Hoff, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. -

This is an action to recover the unpaid balance on a food freezer sold to the defendants in conjunction with one of the familiar food plan contracts. Defendants maintained possession of the freezer but refused to pay for it, claiming that assignment of the contract from the seller to Merchants Finance Company was not proved. The court found as a fact that the assignment had been made. Defendants appeal.

The evidence showed that two of defendants' checks made in payment on the contract actually named the plaintiff as the payee. Thus, the court had abundant evidence to find not only proof of the assignment but that the appellants knew of it. Upon the grounds that the appellants have failed to establish that the assignments of error warrant either reversal or modification, the judgment is affirmed.

65 Wn.2d 956, SCHAAKE PACKING COMPANY, INC., et al., Respondents, v. E. F. CROSHAW et al., Appellants

[No. 37634. Department One.     Supreme Court      April 1, 1965.]

SCHAAKE PACKING COMPANY, INC., et al., Respondents, v. E. F.
                CROSHAW et al., Appellants.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Kittitas County, No. 15640, George H. Freese, J., entered December 23, 1963. Affirmed.

Cross actions to quiet title to real property. Defendants appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.

John D. Thomas, Jr. and Stanley Seddon, for appellants.

Kern, Dano & Cone, for respondents.

PER CURIAM. -

The appellants by their cross complaint contend that the deed which they executed and delivered to the respondents was in fact a mortgage.

We have carefully considered the briefs, the oral arguments and the record. There is substantial evidence to support the trial court's


* Reported in 400 P. (2d) 291.

Reported in 400 P. (2d) 608.

                MEMORANDUM CASES                957

finding that the transaction between the appellants and the respondents was a sale with an option to repurchase and not a mortgage.

This factual determination is decisive of the litigation.

The judgment is affirmed.
     June 1, 1965. Petition for rehearing denied.