Burnley v. Shinn
| Decision Date | 27 June 1914 |
| Docket Number | 11576. |
| Parties | BURNLEY v. SHINN. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Mitchell Gilliam Judge.
Action by Charles E. Burnley against Robert C. Shinn. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Churchill & Davis, of Kent, for appellant.
John P Hartman and Arthur E. Nafe, both of Seattle, for respondent.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the superior court entered in favor of the defendant, Robert C. Shinn. On the 17th day of July, 1912, the respondent, doing business as 'Kent Motor Car Company,' sold and delivered to the appellant a secondhand 'Tourist' automobile for the agreed price of $300. Of the purchase price $50 was paid in cash, and two notes for $125 each given for the balance. Subsequently the notes were indorsedand sold to the State Bank of Kent, Wash. At the time of the sale the appellant testifies that the automobile was represented to him to be 'in first-class order.' The respondent admits that it was represented to be 'in good condition.' After taking possession of the automobile the appellant experienced much trouble in its operation. On the 20th day of August, 1912, the machine in a badly damaged condition was returned to the garage operated by the respondent. The appellant then wrote a letter to the respondent stating that he should put the car in order so as to pass an expert and that the appellant would pay for the damage done to the woodwork. The car had been damaged while being towed in from some distance out in the country. At the time the respondent's son was guiding the car and, while looking back in an effort to get his coat from the rear seat, the car ran into a ditch and was turned over. The appellant in his proposed findings presented to the superior court recognized his responsibility for this damage. On the 17th day of November, 1912, this action was instituted for the purpose of recovering the sum of $300, the amount of the purchase price, together with interest. After the issues were formed, the cause was tried to the court without a jury. Judgment was entered in favor of the respondent for repairs and storage amounting to $33.35, from which the appeal is prosecuted. The action was originally brought against both Robert C. Shinn and W. J. Shinn, but at the conclusion of the appellant's testimony a nonsuit was granted as to the latter, to which there appears to be no objection.
The appellant claims that the car was warranted to him to be in first-class condition, and that there was a breach of this warranty. From the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Park Circle Motor Co. v. Willis
...Tire Co., 110 Or. 567, 223 P. 939; Noel v. Garford Motor Truck Co., 111 Wash. 650, 191 P. 828. On the other hand, in Burnley v. Shinn, 80 Wash. 240, 141 P. 326, where an automobile, while in the possession of the buyer, had been damaged to such an extent that the parties could not be placed......
-
Pratt-Gilbert Co. v. Hildreth
...that appellee could not restore the status quo, and where this is the case a rescission cannot be had. Cookingham v. Dusa, above; Burnley v. Shinn, 80 Wash. 240, Ann. 1916B, 96, 141 P. 326; Bradley v. Palen, 78 Iowa 126, 42 N.W. 623; 35 Cyc. 440. The judgment of the lower court is reversed ......
-
American Exchange Bank v. Smith, 24556.
... ... Pitcher v. Webber, 103 Me. 101, 68 ... A. 593; Smith v. Hale, 158 Mass. 178, 33 N.E. 493, ... 35 Am. St. Rep. 485; Burnley v. Shinn, 80 Wash. 240, ... 141 P. 326, Ann. Cas. 1916B, 96; Noel v. Garford Motor ... Truck Co., 111 Wash. 650, 191 P. 828 ... [23 ... ...
-
Smelt Fishermens Ass'n v. Soleim, 31800
...of damages, ordinarily only nominal damages can be recovered even though, as here, the warranty and its breach are evident. Burnley v. Shinn, 80 Wash. 240, 141 P. 326. The rationale of the rule, as applied to this case, is that the goods, though useless for one purpose, may well have had su......