Dawson Terminal Co. v. Rosenberg Iron & Metal Co.

NOURSE, J.

This is an action upon an account stated for $484.40. The appeal is upon a bill of exceptions which omitted a specification of particulars. This, however, was supplied by order of court made, on motion, prior to the submission of the cause. The defendants had . made a contract with the Parr-MeCormick Steamship Co. to transport iron for defendants from Los Angeles to Seattle by boat. After the delivery of the iron at Seattle the plaintiff made demands upon defendants for charges and expenses which it claimed it had paid the transportation company for defendants’ account. Up to that time plaintiff and defendants had had no business relations of any kind. On February 2, 1920, defendants wrote plaintiff agreeing to pay these advances if plaintiff would furnish an “itemized paid expense bill for advance charges.” The plaintiff did not meet this condition at any time. On May 29, 1920, it mailed a letter to defendants inclosing a corrected bill which, however, did not itemize the advance charges and contained no evidence of payment. On June 14, 1920, plaintiff sent another letter to defendants inclosing a copy of what purported to be an advance charge bill, but the bill inclosed was an account between defendants and the Outer Harbor Dock and Wharf Co. and also failed to show payment by plaintiff. On these facts plaintiff sued upon an account stated. The defendants rely upon the plea that their promise to pay was always conditional upon production of evidence that these charges had been in fact advanced by plaintiff and that this condition was never met. The defendants also showed that full payment had

[491]

been made to the Parr-MeCormick Steamship Co., with whom the original contract was made.

At the opening of the trial the court took the position that if one party should send to another a statement or claim with a demand for payment and the demand is ignored, an account stated is created upon which the sender could recover even though there was no indebtedness and no previous transactions between the parties. We do not so understand the rule as to the creation of an “account stated.” In volume 1, R. C. L., page 215, it is said: “The rule that an account which has been rendered and to which no objection has been made within a reasonable time is to be regarded as admitted by the party charged as