Blomskog, Erickson & Cotton v. City of Seattle

Decision Date02 July 1919
Docket Number15275.
Citation107 Wash. 471,182 P. 571
CourtWashington Supreme Court

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Everett Smith, Judge.

Action by Blomskog, Erickson & Cotton, against the City of Seattle. From a judgment granting part only of the relief sought plaintiff appeals; its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for new trial having been denied. Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for new trial.

O. L Willett, of Seattle, and John A. Soule, of Kent, for appellant.

Walter F. Meier and Frank S. Griffith, both of Seattle, for respondent.


Appellant is the owner of property at the northeast corner of main street and Tenth avenue, in the city of Seattle, upon which is located a building used for residential purposes. In 1909-10 the respondent regraded Jackson street, which runs in an easterly and westerly direction, parallel to and one block south of Main street, and in that work made a 72-foot cur south of appellant's property. Following this cut the hill between Main and Jackson streets began to slide, and continued in that condition up to the time of the trial of this case. In 1916 this slide invaded the appellant's property and has taken the southern portion thereof and with it a part of the foundation and walls of the building. After having duly presented a claim against the respondent, appellant instituted this action to recover damages, alleging that the rental income of its property had been diminished up to the time of the trial to the extent of $12,518, and that its property had been further damaged in the sum of $19,200. The jury returned a verdict in the sum of $3,500, which the appellant, feeling to be inadequate, asks this court to set aside, insisting that the trial court was in error in denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict for the full amount prayed for in its complaint or at least for a new trial on account of various errors claimed to have been committed.

At the trial respondent contended and was allowed to prove that it was then boring test holes in Washington street, which is the street parallel to Main and next north of it, for the purpose of locating the water in the hill lying above the appellant's property, and that the city intended, if water was so located, to provide means of draining such water. There was also admitted testimony to the effect that a petition had been circulated and signed by property owners and subsequently filed with the city asking for the regrade of Jackson street. This evidence did not go to the extent of showing that appellant had been a signer of that petition and, even if it had been so shown, the testimony would not have been admissible for the reason that it is no defense by the city to its unlawful invasion of appellant's property to show that the work which occasioned such invasion had been commenced upon the request of petitioning property holders, who in their petition called upon the city to exercise its legal powers for undertaking the regrade project. Edmonds Land Co. v. Edmonds, 66 Wash. 201, 119 P. 192. The introduction of such...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Johnston v. Ohls
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • July 17, 1969
    ...specifically withdrawing the defense from the jury's consideration is both necessary and proper. See Blomskog, Erickson & Cotton v. Seattle, 107 Wash. 471, 182 P. 571 (1919); Adamson v. Traylor, 60 Wash.2d 332, 373 P.2d 961 (1962). The trial court's failure to affirmatively withdraw the iss......
  • Bingaman v. City of Seattle
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • April 23, 1926
    ... ... Farnandis v. Seattle, 164 P. 225, 95 Wash. 587; ... Blomskog, Erickson & Cotton v. Seattle, 182 P. 571, ... 107 Wash. 471; Kent v. Seattle, 209 P. 529, ... ...
  • Wolten Grocery Co. v. Puget Sound Bridge & Dredging Co.
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • November 5, 1931
    ... ... Skeel & Holman, of Seattle, and Trumbull, Severyns & ... Trumbull, of Port ... corporation is the owner of a lot in the city of Port ... Angeles, lying near the margin of ... negligently injuring his property. Blomskog, etc., v ... Seattle, 107 Wash. 471, 182 P. 571; ... ...
  • Amsbury v. Cowles Pub. Co.
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • September 18, 1969
    ...jury. The motions made by plaintiffs are a proper way to seek the withdrawal of an issue from the jury. Blomskog, Erickson & Cotton v. Seattle, 107 Wash. 471, 474, 182 P. 571 (1919). Defendant also cites Rank v. Alaska Steamship Co., 45 Wash.2d 337, 338, 274 P.2d 583 (1954), in support of t......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT