Clancy v. Reis
| Decision Date | 13 December 1892 |
| Parties | CLANCY ET AL. v. REIS ET AL. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Appeal from superior court, King county; RICHARD OSBORN, Judge.
Action by T. H. Clancy and F. W. Clancy against Peter Reis and A Lombradina for rent, and for possession of the demised premises. Plaintiffs obtained judgment. Defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Stratton, Lewis & Gilman, for appellants.
T H. Cann and White & Munday, for respondents.
The principal question presented by this record is the same as that decided by this court in the case of Furniture Co v. Wilbur, 30 P. 665. We are satisfied with the conclusion reached therein, and that decision must be held conclusive of such principal question. There are, however two other alleged errors presented by the record in this case: (1) as to the action of the court in the impaneling of a jury for the trial of the cause; and (2) as to its action in instructing the jury to find a verdict for the plaintiffs.
As to the first question, any error that the court might have committed could not have been prejudicial to the rights of the defendants, if the action of the court presented by the second question above suggested is sustained. Defendants' case could not have been at all affected by the composition of the jury, if, under the evidence presented to such jury, the court was warranted in instructing it to render a verdict for plaintiffs.
As to the second question, the defendants contend that, as there was an issue of fact made by the pleadings, the decision thereof should have been left to the jury, notwithstanding the fact that there was proof on the part of the plaintiffs as to the existence of each of the material facts put in issue by the answer, and absolutely no proof in regard thereto on the part of the defendants. We are unable to agree with this contention. The testimony presented on the part of the plaintiffs having been sufficient to establish all of the allegations of the complaint put in issue by the answer, the court had the right to assume such facts to be proven for the purposes of that case, unless the defendants introduced some proof tending to disprove the prima facie case thus made by the plaintiffs.
In the case at bar the defendants, at the close of plaintiffs' testimony, moved the court to nonsuit the plaintiffs, and, said motion having been denied, rested their rights upon an exception to such ruling, and refused to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Reader's Digest Ass'n, Inc.
...and refuses to proceed with the case. Pacific Nat'l Bank v. Aetna Indem. Co., 33 Wash. 428, 74 P. 590 (1903); Clancy & Clancy v. Reis & Lombradina, 5 Wash. 371, 31 P. 971 (1892). Such a motion should not be granted, however, if the defendant elects to proceed with the case as respondent did......
-
Umsted v. The Colgate Farmers Elevator Company, a Corporation
...so, however, we should be slow to hold that he thereby waived his right to have the question passed upon by the jury." In Clancy v. Reis, 5 Wash. 371, 31 P. 971, defendants at the close of plaintiff's testimony moved for a nonsuit, and, such motion being denied, they rested their rights upo......
-
Work v. Kinney
... ... etc. Co., 3 N. Mex. 427, 5 P. 710; Martin v ... Ward, 69 Cal. 129, 10 P. 276; McCormick v ... Holmes, 41 Kan. 265, 21 P. 108; Clancy v. Reis, ... 5 Wash. 371, 31 P. 971; Gildusleeve v. Atkinson, 6 ... N. Mex. 250, 27 P. 477; Commissioners etc. v. Clark, ... 94 U.S. 278, 24 ... ...
-
Umsted v. Colgate Farmers' Elevator Co.
...so, however, we should be slow to hold that he thereby waived his right to have the question passed upon by the jury.” In Clancey v. Reis, 5 Wash. 371, 31 Pac. 971, the defendants at the close of plaintiff's testimony moved for a nonsuit, and, such motion being denied, they rested their rig......