Clark v. Federal Motor Truck Sales Corp.
| Decision Date | 13 December 1933 |
| Docket Number | 24549. |
| Parties | CLARK v. FEDERAL MOTOR TRUCK SALES CORPORATION et al. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Howard M. Findley, Judge.
Action by W. J. Clark against the Federal Motor Truck Sales Corporation and others. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal.
Reversed with directions.
Eggerman & Rosling, of Seattle, for appellants.
Edgar S. Hadley and Philip Tworoger, both of Seattle (Padden & Moriarty and Melvin T. Swanson, all of Seattle, of counsel) for respondent.
In his complaint plaintiff alleged substantially as follows: The corporate existence of defendant Federal Motor Truck Sales Corporation (which will hereinafter be referred to as the Federal Co.) and that defendants F. T. Parker and P.J. Oldershaw were, respectively, its manager and sales manager; that during the month of February, 1931, the individual defendants, being aware that plaintiff was possessed of a considerable sum in cash, represented to plaintiff that defendant Federal Co. had a logging job of about one hundred million feet of timber near Port Angeles and that if plaintiff would purchase from the Federal Co. one of its motortrucks, defendants would procure for him a steady job hauling logs from the land to mill; that the work would last for five or six years and that plaintiff would be paid at the rate of $3.50 per thousand; that defendants agreed to repair the roads over which plaintiff would do his hauling, and represented that they had secured a contract for the hauling in the name of one C. E. Jellum covering that work; that defendants procured the execution of a contract between plaintiff and Mr. Jellum dated March 17, 1931, a copy of which was attached to plaintiff's complaint; that defendants represented that Jellum was a man of ability and possessed sufficient means to conduct the logging operation; and that defendants stated that they stood behind the contract and would see that plaintiff was kept at work pursuant thereto.
Plaintiff further alleged that defendants stated that, if for any reason the particular contract above referred to should fail, defendants would put plaintiff and his equipment at work upon some other contract; that, relying upon defendants' promises, plaintiff entered into an agreement for the purchase of a Federal motortruck and paid on account of the purchase price $1,550, and in addition purchased a state license for the operation thereof; that plaintiff also contracted for the purchase of a trailer at the agreed price of $1,653 and purchased a license therefor in the sum of $77; that as a down payment on the purchase of the trailer plaintiff gave his note for $300 due in ninety days.
Plaintiff further alleged that he made certain other disbursements relying upon the representations of defendants, and that he entered upon the logging operation and worked thereon for thirty-one days, when Mr. Jellum abandoned the work, whereupon plaintiff was notified there was no more hauling for him to do; that thereafter plaintiff demanded of defendants that they give him other work, which demand was not complied with.
Finally, plaintiff alleged that the representations made to him by defendants were false and untrue and were by defendants known to be false and untrue, and that the same were made with the intent of deceiving plaintiff and inducing him to purchase a Federal truck that he otherwise would not have bought; plaintiff alleging damages in the sum of $1,550 on account of his purchase of the truck; $200.60 on account of moneys paid for license fees for the truck and trailer; $306.48 paid for removing his family to the vicinity of the work and purchasing necessary furniture and tools; loss of time in the total sum of $1,190.69; loss of the position which he gave up to take the logging contract, for five months at the rate of $175 per month, representing a total of $875; $1,653.55, the balance which he owed on the trailer; and $45 paid for liability insurance; plaintiff demanding a judgment against defendants in the full sum of $5,821.32.
Defendants answered with denials and an affirmative defense praying that the action be dismissed. To the affirmative defense plaintiff replied with a denial.
The action was tried to the court sitting with a jury, which returned a verdict in plaintiff's favor in the full sum of $5,821.32. Defendants moved for a new trial, assigning the statutory grounds, and after argument of this motion, the trial court directed that the same be granted unless plaintiff would accept an award in his favor in the sum of $3,000, which reduction plaintiff accepted. The motion for a new trial was then overruled and judgment entered in plaintiff's favor against all the defendants in the sum of $3,000; from which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Rodene, 38119
...v. Westover, 65 Wash.2d 69, 395 P.2d 630 (1964); Warran v. Hynes, 4 Wash.2d 128, 102 P.2d 691 (1940); and Clark v. Federal Motor Truck Sales Co., 175 Wash. 438, 27 P.2d 726 (1933). Defendant Rodene makes a further assignment of error concerning the eye ailment suffered by Mr. Smith followin......
-
Mountain Elec. Co. v. Swartz
...requisite burden of proof was prejudicial to appellant's interests and constituted reversible error. Clark v. Federal Motor Truck Sales Corporation, 175 Wash. 438, 27 P.2d 726 (1933); 5A C.J.S. Appeal & Error § 1763(3) In the light of our disposition of this appeal by the granting of a new ......
-
Adjustment Dept., Olympia Credit Bureau v. Smedegard, 31797
...of the evidence to the establishment of fraud under the facts of the particular case. The case of Clark v. Federal Motor Truck Sales Corp., 175 Wash. 438, 27 P.2d 726, is directly in point, and we adhere to it. Appellant also excepts to instruction No. 7 for another reason, in which we find......
- De Haven v. Evans, 24735.