Goodin v. Palace Store Co.

(dissenting) — In my opinion, the majority has misconstrued the effect of Atwood v. McKenzie-Waterhouse Co., 120 Wash. 214, 206 Pac. 978, and has wholly misapplied the salutary rule there laid down.

In that case, the defrauded stock subscriber purchased the stock from the insolvent corporation, paying to it one thousand dollars in cash and giving it a note for nine thousand dollars additional. The action was brought for the express and only purpose of rescinding the stock subscription, recovering back the money paid, and securing the cancellation or return of the note. Both the money and the…