Allen v. Hannaford
| Citation | 138 Wash. 423,244 P. 700 |
| Decision Date | 02 April 1926 |
| Docket Number | 19729. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
| Parties | ALLEN v. HANNAFORD. |
Department 2.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Jurey, Judge pro tem.
Action by Marie Allen against Anna Hannaford. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
I. H Randolph and Crandell & Crandell, all of Seattle, for appellant.
Van C Griffin, of Seattle, for respondent.
By this action the recovery of damages is sought for assault. The cause was tried to the court and a jury, and resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $750. Motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a new trial being made and overruled, judgment was entered upon the verdict, from which the defendant appeals.
The appellant was the owner and operator of the Argonne Apartments in the city of Seattle. Respondent for approximately a year prior to April 29, 1924, had been a tenant in one of the apartments. On this day the respondent had made arrangements to move to another apartment house. When the transfer men came after her furniture, the appellant appeared on the scene with a pistol in hand, and threatened to shoot them full of holes if they moved a single article belonging to the respondent. Soon thereafter, standing only a few feet from the respondent, she pointed the pistol at her face, and threatened to shoot her. The appellant admitted that she had a pistol in her hand, but denied that she pointed it at the respondent and threatened to shoot. Subsequently the present action was begun.
The appellant claims that she had a lien for the rent which was then due from the respondent and unpaid, and therefore had a right to prevent the removal of the property from the premises. In this connection reliance appears to be made upon section 1203-1, Rem. Comp. Stat., which covers generally the matter of liens for rent. The concluding sentence of the section, however, is:
'The provisions of this act shall not apply to, nor shall it be enforced against, the property of tenants in dwelling houses or apartments or any other place that is used exclusively as a home or residence of the tenant and his family.'
In what manner a landlord having a lien might prevent the removal of property if he has such right is not involved in this case, and no opinion is expressed thereon.
It is further contended that there is no showing that the pistol which the appellant had in her hand when the assault was made was loaded, and from this it is argued that without such showing a cause of action sufficient to go to the jury is not made out. From the evidence as above indicated the jury had a right to find that the appellant pointed the pistol at the respondent and threatened to shoot. So far as the respondent was concerned, the appellant had the apparent ability to make her threat good. In Beach v. Hancock, 27 N.H. 223, 59 Am. Dec. 373, it was said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McCollum
...Peasley v. Puget Sound Tug and Barge Co., 13 Wash.2d 485, 125 P.2d 681; Howell v. Winters, 58 Wash. 436, 108 P. 1077; Allen v. Hannaford, 138 Wash. 423, 244 P. 700. display of a pistol Before the jury and its admission in evidence in the state's case in chief could conceivably have great we......
-
Peasley v. Puget Sound Tug & Barge Co.
...... assaulted than upon the undisclosed intention of the person. committing the assault. Howell v. Winters, supra; Allen. v. Hannaford, 138 Wash. 423, 244 P. 700. Hence, the fact. that the pistol or gun used is not loaded at the time is. immaterial if ......
-
Carmody v. Trianon Co.
...... MILLARD,. J., dissenting. [109 P.2d 561] . . Appeal. from Superior Court, King County; Clay Allen, Judge. . . Patterson. & Ross, of Seattle, for appellants. . . Will G. Beardslee and George ... Covert, 75 Wash. 528, 135 P. 30, [7 Wn.2d 235]. Ann.Cas.1915C, 81; Knight v. Hibler, 124 Wash. 82,. 213 P. 675; Allen v. Hannaford, 138 Wash. 423, 244. P. 700. In fact, the court's instruction No. 15 is. substantially the same as the instruction approved by this. ......
-
State v. Miller
...85, 136 P.2d 165, 141 P.2d 613 (1943); Peasley v. Puget Sound Tug & Barge Co., 13 Wash.2d 485, 125 P.2d 681 (1942); Allen v. Hannaford, 138 Wash. 423, 244 P. 700 (1926). The fact that an officer may have the courage and skill to disarm a person does not mean that he is devoid of apprehensio......